by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
When we read stories about average people who do extraordinary things in the realm of personal finance…like paying down a mountain of debt in a handful of years…we, understandably, tend to question the veracity of such claims. The stories are often accompanied by photos of the principals, and they all look great: happy, healthy, often young…and without a trace of having gone through any of the hardship associated with what it takes to accomplish such amazing feats.
As I said, we often read these kinds of stories in conjunction with the issue of paying down debt, but we will also see them now in relation to retiring well before typical retirement age…65, 70, whatever. In fact, you don’t have to look around very hard to find a growing body of articles that discuss the subject of retiring in one’s 30’s. Part of what makes the articles so interesting…just as with the articles on paying down huge sums of debt in short order…is how relatively stress-free the process seems to be for so many engaging in it.
So, what’s going on here, and is it really possible to retire decades earlier than your peers?
The answer is “yes, it is possible,” but an important caveat is that you pretty much have to have decided that such is your goal almost as soon as you begin life as a working adult. The reason is that between what you have to set aside, and the lifestyle choices you make to accommodate what you need to set aside, you really have no choice but to embark on this path as early as possible. The reason comes back to math, as so much in life seems to; math, conjoined with reality, prevents an average person making a typical salary for his profession from beginning this journey at, say, age 30, in order to be financially independent by age 40. It is simply not possible.
The underlying issue seems to be, what it takes to accumulate $1 million in savings at an age appreciably younger than 65. Looking at the issue broadly, it comes down to this: having the ability to set aside at least 30 percent of your income for a little more than a couple of decades. If you can do this, you should no longer be “job-dependent” at that time, assuming you are also willing to live a financially-prudent lifestyle.
Here is an illustration: Let’s say that your average salary over the course of your working life is $60,000 per year. Taking into account the realities that, as an average, what you can set aside, in dollars, will likely be lower towards the beginning of your working life and higher at the end, we can assume you will be able to put away $1500 per month as a function of your 30 percent savings effort. Do that for 23 years in a diversified portfolio of investments that generates an average annual return of seven percent, and you will have your $1 million in savings.
Now, depending on how you choose to live, that should be enough to sustain you, but what it also does is provide you with greater flexibility to live a life that is somewhere in between having a daily, rigid employee obligation and needing to generate no additional income whatsoever. For example, if you would like to live a little better than what your $1 million in savings can provide, a part-time, work-from-home opportunity could be a perfect fit for you.
Setting aside a minimum of 30 percent of your gross income is the key here, and the more you earn, the better this works – living on just 70 percent of your income is a lot easier if you make $100,000 per year, compared to if you bring in $40,000 per year. On that note, you cannot realistically expect to succeed at this if you are content to exist at the bottom of the career food chain for the duration of your working life.
The lessons here are not just for the benefit of the very young who, beginning this effort at that age, actually have a shot of no longer needing to work by age 40; they also apply to that person of more advanced years who nevertheless seeks to be unburdened by work obligations sooner, rather than later. Admittedly, it can be more challenging, initially, for that person to reconfigure his life in a way that allows him to set aside his 30 percent, but, when it comes right down to it, much of that has to do with a willingness to make the necessary choices, rather than a genuine inability to do so.
The point here is that if you are willing to live in a way that allows you to set aside 30 percent of what you earn into your retirement savings (if that’s what you call it), and you can do so for a little over 20 years, you will, thereafter, enjoy financial freedom of a kind that you were otherwise not destined to realize.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
One of the questions people are now asking with increasing frequency as their parents age is, “Who is responsible for their debt when they pass on?” The question is of greater concern now than it used to be, because more elderly folks are making ongoing debt obligations a part of their financial profiles. This was not the case many decades ago, but a number of factors, including a more challenging economy and a greater “philosophical” acceptance of debt, overall, have conspired to cause more and more people to leave debt obligations behind at the event of their passing. Accordingly, more loved ones, children as well as spouses, are taking a greater interest in this subject.
For starters, whatever assets you have when you die will be liquidated to meet your debt obligations. If you have no debt, then no worries, obviously, and if you have a little debt, then only what is needed to pay off that sum will be given over to those you owe. What happens, though, if you have a substantial credit card balance, and what you leave behind in assets is not enough to cover it?
The short answer, and good news for those who remain, is that unless others are co-signers on whatever the obligation at issue is, no one else can be held legally responsible for the debts, and that includes spouses and family members. This reality also includes “authorized users” of credit cards, as well. The bottom line is that unless an actual obligation is in your name, you have no responsibility to repay a debt.
Those left behind in these situations may hear from the credit companies to see about payment, particularly if the amounts owed by the deceased are large, but, again, there is no obligation on their part to actually pay anything. That said, because because the executor is responsible for paying as much of the debt obligation as possible with the assets left behind, if the debt exceeds the amount of the assets, then there is likely no money available for distribution to heirs.
There is one important exception to the previous paragraph. Any asset that avoids probate is generally considered to exist outside of the estate. For example, IRAs, 401(k)s, beneficiary payments from insurance policies, even fully-taxable brokerage accounts that are set up with a TOD (transfer of death) provision that allows the naming of a beneficiary to the account…live outside of an estate, for the purpose of asset distribution. However, any assets that are a part of the estate are fair game for those to whom you owe money.
As for obligations that represent secured debt, like a mortgage and car loans, the goods associated with those will be subject to reclaim by the bank, assuming the loans attached to them were solely in the name of the deceased and no one takes over the obligations. Spouses will generally have the opportunity to refinance secured debt like this in their own names, which means that the death of a spouse in whose name the relevant obligation solely existed does not necessarily translate to the house or vehicle automatically going back to the bank. However, if that does not happen, and payments are not continued, the house, car, etc., will be repossessed.
So, the good news, generally speaking, is that any debts for which you were not legally obligated to begin with…do not become yours due to the passing of someone close to you, even if that person was a spouse or a parent. There is one more component to this I want to discuss, however, before we leave this subject behind – it has to do with continuing to use a credit card as an authorized user after the account holder has died.
In some cases, the person doing it may not necessarily realize, in the midst of his grief, that he’s doing something wrong. When people die, a spouse may use the card to buy groceries and pay for incidental expenses, not realizing the legal ramifications of doing so. However, you should know that any charges you rack up after the passing of the account holder are your responsibility, and, what’s more, you’ve given the credit card issuer a potential “in” to try to hold you responsible for the debt that was incurred before the account holder’s death. Bottom line: the card should not be used by anyone once the account holder has passed away.
Problems can even arise stemming from charges made when an account holder was alive but nearing death. If an account holder knows his death is imminent, and uses the card in a way that those close to him benefit from his “generosity,” such as securing cash advances in order to give money to kids or grandkids, or using the card(s) to buy a car for a child or spouse, those recipients can be held responsible for what they received if the deceased’s estate is not sufficient to cover the total of his obligations.
Those kinds of situations aside, however, the bottom line remains that the death of someone to whom you are connected in the familial sense does not mean you are now legally bound to honor their obligations – you’re not.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
No doubt many of you saw this exchange recently between Neil Cavuto and Keely Summers, national organizer of the Million Student March. If not, here it is. Enjoy yourselves.
For now, let’s set aside the fact that Mullen and her rantings represent the best justification seen in a while for raising the minimum voting age in this country to 50. Let’s instead talk about a component to this overall discussion that can be all-too-easily missed: the very idea that that a college education should be available to everyone.
One of the core ideas that serve as the basis for the militant blathering of people like Ms. Summers is that everyone should have a college education. Fair enough; let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that everyone has a college degree (I’m talking about a bachelor’s degree here, which is what we all really mean when we say “college degree”). Now what?
The natural eventuality of each and every one of us having a degree is that said degree becomes worthless, as far as its role as a conduit to careers for which having a degree is genuinely appropriate…and instead becomes little more than a very expensive high school diploma. If everyone has a degree, then that means, well, everyone has a degree, including the guy who fixes your car, the electrician who rewires your house, and the lawn maintenance worker who trims your hedges. The need for people to perform those jobs doesn’t go away because everyone in the country now has a bachelor’s degree. How does the four-year degree assist those professionals in doing their jobs? What, exactly, is derived from the pursuit of a four-year degree that helps your auto mechanic repair your transmission? How does it help the sheet metal worker? The welder? The machinist? The roofer? The emergency medical technician?
We have dishonestly allowed the “everyone should have a college degree” narrative to supplant common sense thinking, when it comes to the subject of the economic infrastructure of the country, as well as the personal economic well-being of individuals and families. It is a narrative that has done a great disservice to the common man, as it has acted to emotionally and psychologically leverage him and his children into unconscionable sums of debt on the basis that his son or daughter simply must have a college degree in order to economically succeed. It ignores the reality that there remain all kinds of “no-college-needed” jobs available that provide much more than a mere living wage. Access to some such jobs may require more than on-the-job training, like a certification from a vocational school or local community college, but the point is that there are plenty of jobs out there that can be had for an initial investment of time and money far, far less than that which is required to obtain a bachelor’s degree.
Sadly, countless numbers of companies and organizations are complicit in this, as well, now demanding applicants come to the table with bachelor’s degrees when applying for positions for which having a degree is obviously not necessary.
A collateral component to this concerns the quality of the college education received by the average person if, again, everyone has a college degree. Traditionally, college was not for everyone, and not because of a lack of access to funding (although that has certainly been one of the barriers for many). College has not been for everyone, traditionally, because it was reserved for the more academically qualified among us. Exclusion is supposed to be an inherent feature of gaining acceptance to college. I’m well aware that the concept of exclusion is very much out of step with the progressive social narrative of the day, but that narrative has, with very few exceptions, poorly served the nation, overall. If lack of money is a barrier to attending college, there are a variety of ways to ably deal with that problem, even in this age of astronomical tuitions at many schools; however, if you don’t genuinely belong at college on the basis of your qualifications, interests, and goals, you are due to rethink why you’re there at all.
To be fair, the cost of college in this country is a distinct problem, but the underlying reasons for that should be the focus of our consideration, rather than who should pay for costs that should not exist in the first place. There are a variety of ways to address that issue, to include bringing back bankruptcy protection for new student debt; what do you think colleges would be able to charge for tuition if their enablers, the lenders of all that money, were suddenly at risk of being on the ass-end of defaults? Another part to addressing the problem? Work to reconnect society with the traditions and ideals of higher education, and, in the process, change the narrative that everyone should have a degree, a narrative that has already gone a long way to financially debilitating generations of our citizens.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
One of the tricky issues for conservative voters in vetting candidates vying for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has to do with their positions on the matter of guns and gun ownership. Some gun enthusiasts insist that a candidate not only express his or her enthusiastic support for the 2nd Amendment, and gun rights, more generally, but also be actual gun owners themselves, in order to earn real legitimacy on the matter of gun rights. I’m not sure how I feel about that, myself. That is, I am personally aware of people who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment who do not happen to own guns themselves. That said, I have to admit that when it comes to the position of public servants, there is a significant gravitas that accrues to them when they not only espouse strong pro-gun positions, but also own several firearms, as well. Meeting that standard establishes them as unmistakable members of the gun-owning fraternity, and as people who gun rights supporters can be confident will represent their interests with the appropriate level of passion.
So, all of this said, where does the current crop of Republican candidates fall on the spectrum of support for gun rights? It’s a good question to ask, and there are some interesting answers. I think that one of the most curious positions, historically, has been held by current frontrunner Donald Trump. Trump, not long ago, formally outlined his “policy” on gun rights, and it reflects positions that most of us favor, including the institution of a national “right to carry” law that would allow citizens to carry concealed in all 50 states. It is worth noting, however, that, several years ago, Trump was not nearly as enthusiastic about gun rights. Among other things, he publicly came out in favor of longer waiting periods, as well as for support of an assault weapons ban. Of course, the more recent version of Trump has been much more pro-gun, and it is good to see, but his overall history on the subject justifiably gives people like myself pause. I’m inclined to take him at his word now, and I do believe that people are allowed to change their positions on issues, over time, but I do wish that his views were more consistent over the course of his adult years. In his favor is the fact that he does own a firearm, and also possesses a concealed carry permit.
After Trump, the most legitimate contenders for the nomination, at this writing, are Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. Carson’s history on the subject is something I find problematic. Carson now cites himself as an enthusiastic supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but as recently as 2013, his expressed views on the topic of guns left a lot to be desired. During an interview that year, Carson actually suggested that what kind of gun you own should hinge, in part, on where you live in these United States; he indicated that those folks who live in more urban, or otherwise more populated, settings should probably not be permitted ownership of semi-automatic guns, while those who live in more rural settings should have unfettered access to semi-autos (and, apparently, the 2nd Amendment itself). As for whether Carson owns a firearm himself, that is not known.
The other two principal contenders are Rubio and Cruz. We know that Rubio has been the recipient of an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and while that sounds good, there are reasons to be suspicious about just how Rubio feels about guns. Rubio has previously gone on record that he is in favor of background checks and waiting periods, and he was also known to come down against legislation in his home state of Florida that would have permitted employees to carry while at work. While he does own a gun himself, a .357 Magnum revolver, it is understood that he purchased it when he decided to run for senate five years ago, and, by his own admission, he rarely fires it. Overall, Rubio’s position on gun rights is not strong, in my opinion.
As for Ted Cruz, his legitimacy on the subject of support for guns and gun rights seems solid. He owns a couple of guns, which is always good, and that ownership complements his long-standing record of staunchly supporting the 2nd Amendment while serving the people of Texas. He was a winning advocate for 2nd Amendment interests while solicitor general of the state, and has the endorsement of the Gun Owners of America, a group described by Rand Paul as “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.”
At this time, there’s little point to running down the gun ownership and historical gun rights positions of each candidate, because, in my estimation, the four cited here are, of the declared candidates, the “final four” competing for the nomination. Of these four, Cruz is really the only one who evidences himself as a sincere, long-time supporter of gun rights. As I said previously, I’m willing to take Trump at face value for now, and largely because it would result in chaos for someone of his stature as a candidate to late back away from the formidable pro-gun policy he outlined a few months ago. I don’t trust Carson all that much on guns, and I think Rubio falls into that disconcerting category of “reasonable gun owner” that suggests he is fine with numerous restrictions on firearms ownership.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
We talk a lot about survival prepping in this space. Admittedly, the discussions are principally oriented on those who are living in residential, detached homes in what might be considered “typical” neighborhoods. This has beckoned questions from those who live in apartments about they should be doing as far as prepping goes, and if they should be doing anything different with regard to their living circumstances. We thought it might be a good idea to take up that subject here.
One of the first issues to consider, as an apartment-based prepper, is the matter of mobility. Those who live in apartment dwellings tend to be poorer candidates for “sheltering in place” than those who live in detached housing that is many miles away from an urban setting. The plain fact is that, in many respects, those who live in apartments have more of an inherent vulnerability than do those who live in houses. For one thing, predators will find easier and greater “quick pickings” by trolling apartment complexes. For another, the size of a typical apartment means that it is more difficult to store what you need, and enough of it, in order to be able to last in place for an extended period. Additionally, it is standard that lease agreements come with all kinds of prohibitions regarding the kinds of modifications you might want to make in the interest of fortifying your unit. If you have spent much time in and around apartments, you know, for example, that doors are not typically very sturdy and door locks are not very good, but that replacing them with anything truly useful will likely be disallowed.
This means that apartment dwellers are smart to give greater consideration, at least, to getting out of Dodge when it appears that distressed conditions are about to set in. A lot of folks who discuss apartment prepping tend to focus on the economical use of space within the unit to store greater amounts of survival supplies, but I generally go in a different direction with this; I think that apartment dwellers should focus on owning a minimum amount of personal effects, with an eye to making an easy escape from their apartments, should circumstances make it appropriate to do so. Now, please don’t misread what I’m saying here – I’m not saying that apartment renters (by the way, I am distinguishing here between those who rent apartments from those who rent detached, “regular” houses – if you reside in a house, whether you own or rent, you enjoy the physical benefits of living there, from a survival standpoint) should have no emergency supplies or provisions to with which to help sustain themselves for at least a few days – they should. However, it is not a good idea for someone living in an apartment to make preparations to shelter in place for an extended period. In those circumstances, it is wise to instead focus on a refining your bug-out plan, taking steps to ensure that it is as seamless as possible.
So, what does that mean? As an apartment dweller, particularly if you live in a more urban area, the first thing to do is “dumb down” your creature comforts. When things get bad and your apartment is penetrated after you leave, you don’t want to lose a lot of expensive goods and furnishings in the process. My advice is that as long as you’re living in this sort of environment, have serviceable items in your place, stuff you can functionally use and enjoy…but nothing too fancy or expensive. The fact is that if you have to bug out on short notice, you will be leaving most of your things behind, and your expectation as an apartment dweller that your stuff will be as you left it, upon your return, should be minimal. In other words, don’t have anything you can’t feel comfortable walking away from in a relative handful of minutes.
Additionally, you should already have a GOOD (Get Out Of Dodge) bag packed and set to go. When it looks like things are about to get bad, and you have decided it’s time to escape, you want to pick up your GOOD bag, get to your car, and make your move.
As for where to go, my advice is that you already have an established network of contacts set up to which you can flee as an apartment dweller. This will probably consist of friends who live in houses many miles away, but they might even be people who are themselves more rural and set away from society (even better).
My point here is that when it comes to prepping, the apartment dweller, particularly the more urban-based apartment dweller, is better off focusing on the bug-out rather than on sheltering in place. Even if you’re not overly concerned with your profile at the onset of significantly distressed conditions set in, apartment living is generally easier and less stress if you don’t have a lot of possessions about which to be concerned.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
Lately, I’ve been hearing from some who’ve read what I have to say about self-defense and keeping it simple, and are, to some degree, challenging me on my opinions. That’s fine, and I welcome the inquiry, especially when it turns to a debate. That’s how we all make progress with respect to ultimately arriving at the best courses of action.
The disagreements center on the idea that a highly-trained self-defense practitioner who has at his disposal multiple techniques to deploy in a real-life street assault situation, is, by definition, going to be far better prepared than the person who has learned only own or two techniques.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it prioritizes intellectual logic over practical reality. Intellectual logic informs us that the greater number of quality techniques we are capable of executing, the better prepared we are to defend ourselves. Practical reality, however, tells us that when we are attacked out of the blue, the parasympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for the “fight or flight” reaction, becomes the dominant influence, and “crowds out” the brain. As much as we would like to say that constant practice makes the execution of multiple techniques easier, the fact is that when you’re attacked, and you have a whole repertoire from which to choose, you still have to manually select which technique(s) you’re going to apply. That is a bad idea for several reasons, but chief among them is a loss of time; the split-second nature of street assaults is such that for you to effectively defend yourself, you just do not have any valuable time to spare pondering what moves you’re going to pull out of your bag of tricks.
I much prefer people deciding on their favorite, most instinctively-used punch and kick, and simply practice those each day, ensuring that they will be deployed as quickly and as powerfully as possible when the time comes to get to business. My advice is that you don’t pick one or two techniques that you think are best, but, rather, choose the technique(s) that you instinctively go to when you feel like you’re about to be in a jam. If you don’t have much (any?) experience fighting as an adult, you can instead choose those you feel most comfortable training when you’re working the heavy bag, and make those “priority” techniques throughout your training. Speaking for myself, while I’m capable of executing a range of techniques with some proficiency, there are a few that simply feel the most natural. The inherent flexibility in my right leg is superior to that in my left leg, and, moreover, kicks with my left leg just don’t feel as comfortable. As a result, while I still train my left leg, I admit that I put a lot more work into training my right. The result is that I have a right leg that can execute a select number of kicks with pretty fair speed and power. Should I need to kick hard and fast, my right leg is the one I’ll use.
There is a quote, attributed to Bruce Lee, that goes like this: “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” That idea perfectly sums up that about which I’m writing here. The nature of attacks on the street is such that the person who is “armed” with a variety of finely-tuned techniques isn’t armed with as much as likely thinks he is. The ability to punch and kick as hard, and as fast, as you can, is about the best arsenal of unarmed combat weaponry you can possess. With all due respect to the detractors of that notion, I’ve seen enough to know how this works, and if you focus on developing your single best punch or kick, you’ll be about as ready to defend yourself as you can ever be.
by Robert G. Yetman, Jr.
The World Health Organization has officially decided that processed meats, like hot dogs, bacon, and sausages, are a cause of colorectal cancer in humans, and that unprocessed red meat is likely a cause of the same disease. Not only were these the conclusions drawn by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, but the group also said that there was a link between eating red meat and the development of pancreatic and prostate cancer, as well.
What the WHO did this time around is serious. It’s one thing to decide there might be a causal relationship between a food or substance and the development of cancer, but it’s quite another to definitively state there is. Processed meat is now, in the evaluation of the WHO, every bit the cancer threat that tobacco, alcohol, and asbestos are. The IARC decided that processed meats are “carcinogenic to humans,” and has placed processed meats on the organization’s group one list. The group one list, which includes the above-referenced substances (tobacco, etc.), is the WHO’s “bottom line” about those things that it has decided are cancer-causing.
One of the questions invariably asked when information like this is published has to do with how much of the now-declared carcinogenic substance is harmful. Well, when a substance makes the group one list, it essentially means that even a modest ingestion of it can significantly raise a human’s risk of getting cancer. In the case of processed meats, the WHO’s illustrative risk-increase guideline says that each 50-gram (1.8 ounce) portion of processed meat, eaten each day, increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent. A 50-gram portion is roughly equivalent to one hot dog or two slices of bacon, so if you’re eating a hot dog each day, or having a couple of slices of bacon each morning with breakfast, then the WHO says you’re increasing your risk of getting colon cancer by almost 20 percent.
As for unprocessed red meat, that made the WHO’s group 2A list of probable carcinogens, and joins substances like the active ingredient in weed killer.
I’ve never been a fan of the WHO’s agenda – I just see it as hyper-politically-motivated, but, that said, it doesn’t mean they can’t be right about bona fide health issues from time to time. I don’t know if this is one of those times or not, but I can tell you, from personal experience, when I greatly lowered my own exposure to red meat, and almost all processed meats, years ago, I began feeling better. I arrived at that point as a result of becoming deathly ill one weekend after having consumed a lot of red meat in one sitting. I always enjoyed red meats prior to that, and I was not shy about partaking of different processed meats, as a part of my diet. One weekend, I had a particularly bad experience after having ingested a great deal of red meat, and there was something about what happened that prompted my mind to considering ditching it altogether. I decided to do it. That was about seven years ago, and I can tell you that, overall, I have felt much better since making the change. I don’t have near the amount of upset stomachs that I recall having before dropping red meat, and I find that my digestion is much improved. I am no vegetarian (nothing wrong with that; it’s just not for me, at least right now), and I’m not even saying that I never eat red meat or processed meats now…but I mostly stay clear of them, and the amounts I do eat, relative to my overall diet, are inconsequential.
In the end, it’s all about moderation, isn’t it? That said, I just tend to believe the noise about processed meats, which contain N-nitroso compounds, which have been shown to damage cells in your gut. Processed and red meats contain in higher quantities the chemicals that create N-nitrosos. Everyone will have to do decide for themselves what the WHO’s declaration means for them and their diets, but given that I have felt better since largely dropping this stuff from my dinner table years ago, I see this as some confirmation about the direction I chose.
On this episode of the podcast, Jim Paris and Bob Yetman discuss reverse mortgages, RFID blocking wallets, the reality that many people are now forced into working part time jobs (sometimes more than one), why ‘low tech’ identity theft is still more of a risk than hacking. Go To Podcast Page – Click Here
On this episode of the podcast Jim Paris and Bob Yetman discuss the money saving benefits of babysitting co-ops, the reality that many older Americans are entering retirement with significant education debt, how to buy Bitcoin through a stockbroker and even in your IRA, and is it now tougher to get a job as you get older? Go To Podcast
On this episode of the podcast Jim Paris and Bob Yetman discuss the news that only 1 in 3 people say that will be able to fully retire at age 65, the risk of loaning out your car, are those ‘cash for your home’ deals worth considering, and a new website that makes it super easy to shop out your car insurance. Go To Podcast
I have been talking a lot lately about SlingTV, a new service that brings live news and live sports to your TV without Cable. We have just learned that Sling is offering a free basic Roku device if you sign up for a 3 month (paid in advance) subscription to their service. This is a great option for those that want to drop cable TV and give Sling a try. I have had Sling TV for about two weeks now and I am really happy with it.
James L. Paris
On this episode of the podcast Jim Paris and Bob Yetman give an update on Sling TV and comment on a new Internet TV option coming soon from Apple, also does it still pay to go to law school?, a great website to use to know how much to bid on hotels at Priceline.com, and does raising the minimum wage actually hurt the very people it is supposed to help? Latest Podcast, Click Here
April 2, 2015
On this episode of the podcast Jim Paris and Bob Yetman discuss a new service that provides live sports and news and a host of TV channels through the Internet (no cable TV required). Also, how to optimize your student loans, how the Internet is affecting the elderly, and the future of high paying jobs in law enforcement.
If you are a little adventurous, this might just be an ideal strategy for you. I just wrote a big article on all of the free things that you can take in at Disney.There are some limits on what you can do for free, but this article will share with you a low cost way to be “officially” staying on Disney property.
A tent site at the Fort Wilderness Campground can be booked for about $80 – you might even get a slightly better deal if you are a AAA Member. You can have up to ten people stay at your campsite. I can also add that the showers and bathroom facilities are very much up to Disney standards.
Fort Wilderness has quite a bit to offer in its common areas, but having access to the swimming pools and jacuzzis, would be a key amenity that you gain access to with your low cost tent site. There is even a slide and a kiddie pool, too!
Other free amenities include a jogging trail, playground areas, basketball courts, laundry facilities, even a grill you can use at your campsite for cooking your own meals.
You can even bring along your own bicycles to explore the Fort Wilderness complex. It is also a convenient way to be nearby for the free nightly bonfire, sing-a-along, and movies, too! Be sure and book your camping site a few weeks in advance, as these spots fill up quickly.
James L. Paris