Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Most Dangerous Volcano In America Is Roaring To Life
10/9/2013 12:42:36 AM

GOP Congressman Decimates Andrea Mitchell and Slams 'Pathetic News Reporting'

Kyle Drennen's picture

[***UPDATED*** 17:30 ET: More analysis and full transcript added]

Appearing on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC 1 p.m. ET hour show on Tuesday, Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy slammed the press for not doing its job in pointing out the hypocrisy of ObamaCare being delayed for certain groups but not for all Americans: "...the media won't even ask the question about, 'Why are you [the Obama administration] treating families different than big businesses?'...That's how pathetic, I think, news reporting has become, when we won't ask tough questions to the administration." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

That response was prompted by Mitchell ranting that Republican calls for a one-year delay of the ObamaCare individual mandate was a "non-negotiable demand." Moments later, after Duffy explained that the GOP has "been incredibly reasonable, making a small ask," Mitchell was aghast: "Do you consider it a small ask that he [Obama] get rid of the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by a – by the vote of a presidential election, and the United States Supreme Court." Duffy replied: "Andrea, hold on. That's your spin." Mitchell laughably asserted: "That's not spin."

Duffy pointed out what a joke media coverage of ObamaCare had become:

You need Jon Stewart on Comedy Central to ask [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius, 'Hey, why won't you treat these two equally?' And she can't answer it....'Why do you want your own health care and you won't join us in ObamaCare?' That question I haven't seen anybody ask on MSNBC. Please ask it, because they don't have a good answer for it.

Mitchell argued: "Well, we've asked questions to both sides. That's not fair. We have asked the question..."

In reality, no such question was ever put to Sebelius in an interview with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday. In addition, the question was left out of an NBC interview with the Health and Human Services Secretary on September 30.

Perhaps realizing that fact, Mitchell was forced cite Sebelius on The Daily Show: "Well, I think the response would be – the response that Kathleen Sebelius gave to Jon Stewart was, 'If we had gotten what we wanted, which was a single-payer plan, this wouldn't be the problem.'" Duffy noted: "That's right, you say, 'I think this is what they would say,' but you don't know what they would say because you haven't asked."

Wrapping up the segment, Duffy reiterated: "We're just saying treat individuals and families like big business and have Obama go into ObamaCare. That's it. No one asked that question but Jon Stewart. I think the media should start doing its job."

Mitchell snidely remarked: "Thanks for your advice."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Here is a full transcript of the October 8 interview:

1:07PM ET

ANDREA MITCHELL So what do lawmakers say? How do they justify continuing the standoff? One of those five service members killed [in Afghanistan during the government shutdown], as we've reported, was from Wisconsin, and joining me now is Wisconsin Republican Congressman Sean Duffy, a member of the House committee on the budget. Congressman, I'm not ascribing blame any place, other than to the entire system here. How do you respond to the mother of Corporal Collins?

REP. SEAN DUFFY [R-WI]: First off, my heart and prayers go out to the families who have lost loved ones in battle and I'm so grateful for the ultimate sacrifice these young individuals have made on behalf of our country. As we've talked this morning, we are going to work through this week, a mini C.R. that would help with this funding [for death benefits to families of fallen soldiers]. Duncan Hunter, as you mentioned, had indicated that this is in the discretion of the government. If they disagree, we will work this week to make sure-

MITCHELL: The Pentagon disagrees with that.

DUFFY: Right. So if they disagree, we'll work through a mini C.R. that will take care of these families who have lost loved ones. That is not the intent of this shutdown.

MITCHELL: But I mean the larger point, though, Congressman Duffy, is these mini C.R.s, mini continuing resolutions, that's the whole question of, you know, taking little pieces of the government. The issue is not that this is a small matter, it's a very big matter, but so is the matter of the kids in Head Start. So is the problem of the single moms who aren't getting food stamps and aren't getting their help. You know, so down the road are the survivor's benefits, and that fund is going to run out in weeks, if not months.

So you can't take this piecemeal, Congressman. You know, isn't the issue that someone has to sit down and figure out what to do about the stalemate that has led to this disgrace?

DUFFY: Well, you hit the nail on the head. I mean and the President has said, "I won't sit at the table." Harry Reid said, I won't negotiate."

MITCHELL: Well, he – no. He said to the Speaker today on the phone, according to the White House-

DUFFY: "I won't negotiate."

MITCHELL: He said that he will negotiate, and negotiate a lot of things that you all want – tax reform, entitlements – that he will negotiate once the threat of the government shutdown and of the debt default is not hanging over their heads. That's what he says.

DUFFY: Andrea, that's ridiculous. And I don't know – I mean I think you said you've been through 18 shutdowns.

MITCHELL: Yeah.

DUFFY: I don't know if you've seen a president that has come and said, "I'm not going to negotiate." I mean this is historic, that a president says, "I'm not going to sit at the table." As a guy that's the 10th of 11 kids, families work through problems by talking and communicating, so to does the government.

And you're well aware that all we've asked for is that the President and the administration join us in ObamaCare, the American people and Congress, and that individuals and families be treated just like big business. That's what they're holding out for and I think – I mean even this morning-

MITCHELL: Congressman, you're asking him – that's a non-negotiable demand. Why not sit down and negotiate over entitlement reform, which is something that you all have been demanding and that he has offered in his initial budget? You're putting on the table a non-negotiable demand.

DUFFY: Listen, Andrea – listen, is it non-negotiable that he's not gonna enter ObamaCare? And he's gonna say, "I get my gold-plated health care plan but I want members of Congress and the rest of America to be in ObamaCare." That's non-negotiable? Come on. That's not reasonable.

I mean, one issue we have is the media won't even ask the question about, "Why are you treating families different than big businesses?" You need Jon Stewart on Comedy Central to ask Secretary Sebelius, "Hey, why won't you treat these two equally?" And she can't answer it. I mean, that's how pathetic I think news reporting has become, when we won't ask tough questions to the administration.

MITCHELL: Well, we've asked questions to both sides. That's not fair.

DUFFY: Do you ask that question, Andrea? Ask the question.

MITCHELL: We have asked the question, and the basic point is that-

DUFFY: "Why do you want your own health care and you won't join us in ObamaCare?" That question I haven't seen anybody ask on MSNBC. Please ask it, because they don't have a good answer for it. But in regard to actually-

MITCHELL: Well, I think the response would be – the response that Kathleen Sebelius gave to Jon Stewart was, "If we had gotten what we wanted, which was a single-payer plan, this wouldn't be the problem."

DUFFY: That's right, you say, "I think this is what they would say," but you don't know what they would say because you haven't asked. And that's one of the problems we have here.

But I think in regard to negotiating issues, Andrea, I think we can sit at the table and go, "Okay, well, if these ones are off the table, what is on the table, Mr. President, as we move towards the debt limit negotiation?" And he would say, "Well, lets talk. Maybe it's going to be entitlement reform, maybe it's tax reform." We'll have all those conversations. But when he says, "You have to give me what I want, I'm not going to talk to you," I think America looks at that and goes, "I understand there was divided government, people are hard on both sides, but I expect them to talk to each other and work through their differences and make it work." And that's not happening now, Andrea.

MITCHELL: Congressman, this is about – with all due respect, this is about military death benefits to kids, to 19-year-old kids who have died in Afghanistan and who are not returning home. This is about what their families are entitled to by law and what they are not getting.

DUFFY: And I just told you that we're gonna move-

MITCHELL: This is not about what you want on ObamaCare and it's not what the President wants on the debt ceiling.

DUFFY: Don't spin that on me. I just told you at the top of our segment that we're gonna pass a mini C.R. to address those benefits. We're going to look out for our military, especially those families who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We are gonna do that and we're gonna do it this week.

So you were asking me about the larger issue of why can't people resolve this government shutdown. And we have been incredibly reasonable, making a small ask. And if the President doesn't like what we-

MITCHELL: Do you consider it a small ask that he get rid of the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by a – by the vote of a presidential election and the United States Supreme Court?

DUFFY: Andrea, hold on. That's your spin.

MITCHELL: That's not spin.

DUFFY: The President gave a one-year exemption for – listen, he gave a one-year exemption for businesses in regard to taxes and penalties on ObamaCare. Everyone still can go into the exchange if they want, but they're not penalized in big business if they don't go in. We've said for the individuals, for the families, if they want to go into ObamaCare they can. But if they don't, for one year don't tax them or penalize them, just like the way your treating big businesses. That is fair under the law. That's all we've asked for.

He's won the debate, Andrea. The exchanges are up and kind of running. There's subsidies out there. This is a small ask on equity and equality under the law for individuals and families, just like big business. And why won't he join us in ObamaCare? Why wasn't Michelle Obama on October 1st at the computer with her family signing up for ObamaCare? Or Jay Carney? They have their own gold-plated health care plan that they're in and they don't-

MITCHELL: So do you.

DUFFY: No I'm not, I'm in ObamaCare. I'm in ObamaCare, Andrea. All members of Congress are, and my family. The President should join us in ObamaCare, and the rest of America. Is that pretty reasonable? We should all be treated equally under the law? Why should members of Congress be in ObamaCare and not the President? Explain that one. Isn't that fair?

[LONG PAUSE]

MITCHELL: I think that the-

DUFFY: Can you defend that? Can you defend why the President shouldn't be in ObamaCare like members of Congress and their staffs?

MITCHELL: I can't defend why...

DUFFY: Then you should ask that question to him.

MITCHELL: ...Congress and the White House cannot figure out a way to reopen the government...

DUFFY: Then ask them that question, Andrea.

MITCHELL: ...so that our kids and their families can get the benefits that they have been-

DUFFY: Listen, and I've told you that we're gonna do that this week. But I want your viewers to know that this has been a reasonable approach by – on our part to go, "Everyone equal under the law, the President and Congress in ObamaCare." If it's good for America, it's good enough for the people who passed the law. And individuals for one week – for one year being treated like big business who came to this hill with their lobbyist and got an exemption to the taxes and requirements of ObamaCare. Give that same treatment to the families in America.

And again, this has nothing to do with the exchanges being open or the subsidies in the exchanges. We're not having any impact on those. They get to stand up and run. We're just saying treat individuals and families like big business and have Obama go into ObamaCare. That's it. No one asked that question but Jon Stewart. I think the media should start doing its job.

MITCHELL: Thanks for your advice. Thank you, Congressman.

DUFFY: Thank you.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/10/08/gop-congressman-decimates-andrea-mitchell-and-slams-pathetic-news-repo#ixzz2hBGdZklG

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Dave Cottrell

2900
2802 Posts
2802
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 100 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: MADE In the USA
10/10/2013 5:28:00 AM
Keep sharing this stuff, Jim. The mainstream media won't.

Quote:
15 Years of flat temps show that the Climate Models are in Error!
Scientists Release ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’
October 12, 2013

JIM LAKELY

Jim Lakely is director of communications at The Heartland Institute, co-director of Heartland’s... (read full bio)

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference on Sept. 17, 2013, at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.

UN Report Challenged
The new report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, challenges what its authors say are the overly alarmist reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which released its most recent report on September 30, 2013.

The series is published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization that publishes Environment & Climate News. Economist magazine in 2012 called The Heartland Institute “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism on man-caused climate change.” The New York Times calls Heartland “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

Thousands of Peer-Reviewed Citations
Like the earlier volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, this new report cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles to determine the current state-of-the-art of climate science. NIPCC authors paid special attention to contributions overlooked by the IPCC or that present data, discussion, or implications arguing against the IPCC’s claim that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors conclude the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double. The NIPCC authors found that whatever warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.

Copies of a Summary for Policymakers, an executive summary, and a digital version of the entire book can be downloaded for free at the NIPCC website, http://www.nipccreport.org/.

In addition to an Executive Summary, the new edition of Climate Change Reconsidered has chapters on Global Climate Models and Their Limitations, Forcings and Feedbacks, Solar Forcing of Climate, Observations: Temperature Records, Observations: The Crysophere, Observations: The Hydrosphere and Oceans, and Observations: Extreme Weather.

NIPCC is a project of three nonprofit organizations: the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. The lead authors of the new report are climate scientists Craig Idso, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Robert Carter, Ph.D. Scientists from around the world participated as lead authors, section authors, contributors, and reviewers.

The first two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, published in 2009 and 2011, are widely recognized as the most comprehensive and authoritative critiques of the reports of the United Nations’ IPCC. In June, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the two volumes.

Praise for New Report
Analysts praised the new edition of Climate Change Reconsidered.

“The updated edition of Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science—makes a compelling case that the computer models, hypotheses, and policy prescriptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are at odds with reality,” wrote environmental science author Paul Driessen on the Master Resource website.

“The NIPCC report will reveal a scientific community deeply uncertain about the reliability of the computer models used by the IPCC to predict climate problems. Climate Change Reconsidered II will also demonstrate that many of the world’s leading climate experts now question, or entirely refute, the IPCC’s basic postulates and its interpretations of the observational evidence,” wrote International Climate Science Coalition executive director Tom Harris in the Calgary Herald.

“The NIPCC criticism doesn’t come from a ‘fringe’ group of scientists: it is repeated in thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature, many of which are listed and interpreted by the scientist authors of the NIPCC report,” Harris explained.

“The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error,” reported science writer Steve Goreham in the Washington Times.

Jim Lakely (jlakely@heartland.org) is communications director for The Heartland Institute.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/10/12/scientists-release-climate-change-reconsidered

+1
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Most Dangerous Volcano In America Is Roaring To Life
10/10/2013 5:19:59 PM
They are brainwashing your/our grandchildren. It is time to wake your/our kids up because we aren't done raising them yet. Allowing this agenda to be taught in our schools is just wrong. They are Brainwashing our grandchildren!

Third-graders learn to protest against their school SEIU-style – courtesy of Common Core-aligned lesson


By Kyle Olson

EAGnews.org

MUSKEGON, Mich. – Every day our staff at EAGnews wrestles with the following questions: “What are our children being taught in school?” and “How is the information they’re learning going to change America?”

Zaner protest picture 2Those are important questions to ask, particularly since government schools in more than 40 states will soon be teaching students a curriculum that’s aligned to the new Common Core national standards.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about Common Core. One of the biggest is, “What kind of ideas are leftists going to try and slip into your child’s classroom through the Common Core experiment?”

There’s no doubt it will happen. There is far too much documented evidence of liberal educators actively designing lesson plans and strategies to indoctrinate students into their school of thought.

And they don’t just target college students and high school kids. Many of their strategies call for the indoctrination process to begin in the early elementary grades.



One might argue that there’s a firewall against such political mischief, since it’s up to local school districts to decide how they’re going to teach the new math and English standards to students.

But most school districts in Common Core-aligned states won’t be designing their own unique curriculum. That would require a lot of time, money and brainpower.

Instead most districts have purchased – or will purchase – a pre-written, Common Core-ready curriculum from a major textbook company, like the Zaner-Bloser company.

EAGnews recently purchased a stack of Common Core-aligned teacher guides produced by Zaner-Bloser because we wanted to know what students are being taught about America’s history, economic system and predominant culture.

The guides we purchased are for grades 1-6 and feature different texts promoted by the Common Core learning standards. Each text comes with a week’s worth of related lessons.

Handling ‘problems,’ SEIU-style

One of the books recommended in the third-grade teaching guide is “Si Se Puede/Yes We Can!”

Zaner-Bloser includes this book – with its very familiar title – in its “Rights and Responsibilities” unit.

Most Americans would probably expect a unit about citizen “rights and responsibilities” to be firmly rooted in the Constitutional principle of individual rights – as described by the Bill of Rights – and checks on the power of government.

But that’s not the goal of the “Si Se Puede” book and lesson plans.

According to the Zaner-Bloser guide, the “central question” for students to grapple with is, “How can we work together as a community to stand up for our rights?”

You can already see where this is going.

“Si Se Puede” tells the story of a 1985 SEIU-led janitors strike in Los Angeles.

The acronym SEIU refers to the Service Employees International Union, one of the largest and most radical far-left labor unions in the country.

So that’s the kind of “community” Zaner-Bloser authors are referring to.

In the teachers’ guide, the authors say the janitors went on strike “for more money because their wages [were] too low to be fair.”

Keep in mind, this unit is geared for 8- and 9-year-olds who have no understanding of how the labor market works, let alone any knowledge of the economic principle of supply and demand.

And yet they’re being told that the janitors weren’t making a “fair” wage.

That’s not all they’re being taught. In the guide, teachers are told to introduce students to the vocabulary word of the week – “protest.”

The book instructs the teacher to “remind students that a protest is an event in which people publicly show their strong disapproval of something. Discuss protest throughout the week. Challenge students to use the word while speaking and writing.”

After students read the book and learn about underpaid janitors and protests, the guide tells teachers to help students apply these concepts to their lives.

They do that by brainstorming about problems they believe exist in their school.

In case the kids can’t identify any problems worth protesting, the Zaner-Bloser authors helpfully offer an example: “No talking allowed in the lunchroom.”

The authors even suggest a solution: “Protest by making signs and marching.”

So here you have a Common Core-aligned lesson instructing third-graders how to stage a public protest against their adult school leaders. They’re essentially being groomed to be future members of labor unions, or at least to sympathize with the organized labor point of view.

We have teachers – teachers! – who are showing 8- and 9-year-olds how to be defiant and unruly.

We certainly hope they don’t teach them the standard SEIU procedure for dealing with classmates who become “scabs” and cross their protest line.

In case you’re wondering, nowhere in the “Rights and Responsibilities” teachers’ guide is there any mention of the founding of America, our God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution or the protection of individual rights through limited government.

But we shouldn’t be too surprised. Traditional American values quickly lose their value when left-wing activists control the classroom.

That’s why it’s so important that parents pay attention to what’s going on in their children’s school. I implore you to find out what your children are being taught.

There is an organized effort to push these radical ideas on very young kids. Only parents and other citizens have the power to put an end to it.

http://eagnews.org/third-graders-learn-to-protest-against-their-school-seiu-style-courtesy-of-common-core-aligned-lesson/

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+1
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Most Dangerous Volcano In America Is Roaring To Life
10/18/2013 1:53:33 AM

How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchanges?

There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, [the Department of Health and Human Services] has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people.

—Douglas Holtz-Eakin
President, American Action Forum[1]

Enrollment in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges has proven to be a somewhat difficult process amidst technical glitches and delays. Aside from the issues associated with actually purchasing health care, once an individual gets a quote for health insurance on an exchange, is the premium higher or lower than before?

Our research finds that for many states, the insurance on health exchanges will cost more than existing insurance. This study illustrates that the general experience for individuals shopping on the exchange is that of increasing premiums from what was available to them prior to implementation of the exchanges. Many families and individuals will face this reality as they apply for coverage, and the implications of experiencing sticker shock are important to consider if enough people choose not to sign up for coverage for various reasons.

Methodology

The Heritage Health Insurance Microsimulation Model (HHIMM), in concordance with insurer data compiled by Mark Farrah and Associates, is used to create a snapshot of what it looks like to shop for insurance prior to exchange implementation. This data is used to build weighted average premiums within the rating areas, similar to the process described in the most recent release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[2]

First, we use expected age distribution in the individual market from the HHIMM. Next, we use census data for the county populations in order to scale up to the state level, creating something that is roughly comparable to the weighted averages presented by HHS.[3] This comparison is different from others in that, rather than comparing specific plans, it is designed to capture the difference in premium levels between the exchange and what could be acquired in the market.

This paper is meant to provide a necessary segue to HHS’s data summary, creating an apples-to-apples comparison of exchange data to what the costs are for individuals. Effectively, we have used the same methods that were employed to provide summary data on the exchange markets to prior insurance data in order to get the closest comparison.

Some state-based exchanges have data releases that are more limited than the 36 federal exchanges. For state exchanges, some premiums must be estimated. As is the case with all studies built to address the changes in exchange premiums, it is important to note that when more data becomes available, results could vary slightly.

This study considers the data as released by HHS. States with little data released are omitted from this study.[4]

Results

Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges. It is true that in some states, the experience could be the opposite. This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York. Many states, however, double or nearly triple premiums for young adults. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Vermont see some of the largest increases in premiums.[5]

How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchanges?

The Obama Administration is desperate for younger people to enroll to prevent an adverse selection death spiral. As pointed out by Sam Cappellanti at the American Action Forum, “The enrollment of these low cost young adults…is essential as they are required to subsidize the costs of insuring the elderly and chronically ill.”[6]However, young adults face a penalty for not enrolling that is projected to be far less than the insurance coverage they could receive.

Our findings confirm that younger populations see larger percentage increases in premiums. A state that exhibits this clearly is Vermont, where the increase for 27-year-olds is 144 percent and the increase for 50-year-olds is still 60 percent, but far less. All states exhibit this relationship.

Many individuals will experience sticker shock when shopping on the exchanges. It is clear that many policies and cross-subsidization within Obamacare will lead to upward shifts in premiums. These policies include the health insurance tax, essential health benefit and actuarial value regulations, less allowed age variability in premiums, community rating, and guaranteed issue.[7] However, real uncertainty, amidst a rocky start, surrounds what enrollment will look like in the exchanges.

Fantasy Savings

Obamacare will leave many people paying more for their health insurance. The healthcare.gov website is learning to crawl, with additional data trickling in. However, based on information already released by HHS, states, and insurance plans, the claims of savings on premiums for the average participant is a fantasy.

—Drew Gonshorowski is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/enrollment-in-obamacare-exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare#.UmB6Y9uklHA.facebook

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0
Jim
Jim Allen

5804
11253 Posts
11253
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The Most Dangerous Volcano In America Is Roaring To Life
10/24/2013 3:26:35 PM

9 Young Entrepreneurs Who Became Personal Finance Prodigies

Updated: 6/26/2013 | Article ID: INF16221

TITLE-9-young-entrepreneurs-who-became-personal-finance-prodigies

It’s hard learning how to manage money responsibly, especially when you’re young and think you have a disposable income and zero responsibilities. Getting a head start on learning the value of money and how to budget your personal finances will better prepare you for your adult life as you struggle to manage multiple fiscal responsibilities.

While some young adults might squirrel aside some money by putting it in a piggy bank or opening a savings account, others have combined their cash with a good idea, a lot of hard work and a bit of luck to turn their investments into multi-million dollar enterprises. Here are 9 young entrepreneurs who don’t have to worry about personal finances ever again (if they’re smart with their money, that is).

Sean Belnick, Founder of BizChair.com

1-Sean-Belnick-personal-finance-prodigy

When Sean Belnick was 14 years old, he spent $500 to build an online marketplace for office chairs. That marketplace evolved into BizChair.com, an e-tail site with over 250,000 products and 75 employees. At just 22 years of age, today Belnick’s net worth is reported to be $42 million.

Sean Belnick -- http://www.bizchair.com

Catherine and David Cook, Founders of MyYearbook.com

2-Catherine-David-personal-finance-prodigy

In March 2005 Catherine and her brother, David, were flipping through a high school yearbook and came up with an idea for a social networking site. They started MyYearbook.com when they were 14 and 16 years of age. The website has over 2 million users and attracts 20,000 new accounts each day, and the young entrepreneurs (now 19 and 21 years old) operate an enterprise that’s valued at $10 million.

Catherine and David Cook -- http://www.myyearbook.com

Benjamin Sann, Founder of BestParking.com

3-Benjamin-Sanns-personal-finance-prodigy

When he was in high school, Ben Sann (now 19) created BestParking.com, a site that allows people to compare parking rates in various cities. The company got incorporated this year and has a lot of potential to earn money from partnerships with parking companies, ad revenue, and applications.

Benjamin Sann -- http://bestparking.com

Ashley Qualls, Founder of WhateverLife.com

4-Ashley-Qualls-personal-finance-prodigy

At 14 years of age, Ashley Qualls started a hobby website called WhateverLife.com, which provides free MySpace templates and HTML tutorials to young people. The site quickly grew in popularity and currently attracts more than 7 million unique visits and 60 million page views each month. She’s now 19 years old and pulls in over $1 million a year.

Ashley Qualls -- http://www.whateverlife.com

Ben Kaufman, Founder of Mophie

5-Ben-Kaufman-personal-finance-prodigy

Mophie, an iPod accessories website, was founded by Ben Kaufman when he was 18 years old. The company makes iPod cases, clips, bands and more, and it draws much of its success from its online user base of members who contribute product ideas. Mophie currently clears about $5 million in annual revenue.

Ben Kaufman -- http://www.mophie.com

Fraser Doherty, the Homemade Jam Man

6-Fraser-Doherty-personal-finance-prodigy

In 2008 Fraser Doherty was named the College Entrepreneur of the Year for developing a “SuperJam” made from high-nutrient fruit and fruit juice. The young man started making jam with $5 worth of supplies when he was 14 years old, and now at the age of 20 he has contracts with the UK’s biggest grocery retailers and brings in over $3 million in revenue a year.

Fraser Doherty -- http://www.superjam.co.uk

Juliette Brindack, Founder of MissOandFriends.com

7-Juliette-Brindak-personal-finance-prodigy

When she was 10 years old, Juliette Brindack thought of the idea for MissOandFriends.com, a website catered to young females that aims to build up self esteem and positivity. Now Juliette is 19 years old and her website, worth $15 million, is visited by millions of girls each month.

Juliette Brindack -- http://missoandfriends.com

Paul Bourque, Affiliate Marketer

8-Paul-Bourque-personal-finance-prodigy

When Paul Bourque was 18 years old, he started learning about affiliate marketing. Less than a year later, he’s now earning over $300,000 a month through AzoogleAds and works full-time as an affiliate marketer. Paul also runs an affiliate marketing blog and puts most of his earnings towards future investments.

Anshul Samar, Founder of Elementeo

9-Anshul-Samar-personal-finance-prodigy

When he was a middle school student, Anshul Samar created Elementeo, a gaming startup that teaches chemistry via fun card games that are similar to Magic: the Gathering or Pokemon. He’s now 14 years old and his company was estimated to have hit $1 million in revenue its first year of operation.

Anshul Samar -- http://www.elementeo.com

http://quicken.intuit.com/support/help/fun-with-finances/9-young-entrepreneurs/INF16221.html;jsessionid=yPydOzFqtcUBArbusCpPfg**.p54-1

May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you,



Jim Allen III
Skype: JAllen3D
Everything You Need For Online Success


+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!