It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company
It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
bench craft company>
Good morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company[reefeed]
bench craft company
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company
It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
bench craft company
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company bench craft companyGood morning Chiefs fans! A thank you to Joel and Chris for covering for me. Technology seems to hate me lately. Today's Kansas City Chiefs news covers a lot of topics: the national anthem, racial bias, Super Bowl odds, and pork. Enjoy.
KABUL (BNO NEWS) -- More than 700 children lost their lives in conflict-related security incidents in Afghanistan in 2010, according to figures compiled in an annual report of the Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM). ...
Monterona told Arab News in an email that he has received several messages from jailed OFWs asking for assistance. One such message was from Farouq Hadji Malik Bayabao, who claimed that he and his fellow inmates had been heavily beaten ...
bench craft company Are you tired of looking for ways to make money online, only to be let down because it turns out the program was a sham? Me too! That is why I'm writing this article. I was looking for ways to make money online and decided there isn't really a comprehensive list that tells you the best ways to make money online. So here I am writing this article. First let's discuss the different types of ways to make money online.
Paid-To-Click: Paid to click sites can be a good way to make money online. You typically don't make a boat load from one site but if you are a member of 10 PTC sites and make 50 cents a day from each one that's $5 for free you only spent 10 minutes on. This is the easiest of the methods to make money online. Here's some examples.
Paidtoclick:This site pays out and has lots of offers to complete. They don't payout a lot of view but they have lots of ads to view.
Clixsense: This site normally has a lot of offers to click and you get paid .01 per ad so they have a pretty good pay rate. I would suggest this site.
Buxsite: This is a great website to make some money with. They only pay 1 cent per ad view but it's the referral system that makes you money. Why waste time referring people when you can buy referals. For .25 you get a referral who will do clicking for you. So buy as many referrals as you want!
Surveys/Forms: Completing surveys and forms can be a great way to make money online. Not only is it fast and easy but most of the time you get paid 50 cents to a dollar per completion. Making money online with complete survey sites is one of my favorite ways to make money online. Here is a couple good sites you should check out if your interested in this.
Fusion Cash:This is a great site to make money with. This site allows you to filter out all the offers that aren't free and only complete offers that are 100% free. You can easily make money online with this website.
CashCrate:Hands down this is the best survey completion site out there. This website has tons of surveys to complete and they all pay >50 cents. Some are worth as much as $15. This is a really easy way to make money online and I would suggest this site to ANYONE trying to make some cash online. My last payout was $250 from these guys for one month of work.
