I've read about affiliate marketing, others that I can't even understand and some don't suite me.

Now I really need proof if you can make a lot of money on the Internet and I need to know who has really made it to the top. Please don't refer me to Mr. Bill Gates.

I recently took licensing classes, passed my exam, and am in the process of affiliating with a small but longstanding brokerage. I'm really in unfamiliar territory here. I don't feel like class really taught me much as far as actually being out there, in the field, with all those contracts. They only prepared us as far as terminology, ethics, fair housing, etc. There was never once a practice of what it would be like to go through the whole entire process of selling a home. I talked to the other agents about it, and they all say "You just gotta get in there and do it!" I'm worried I will be just looking clueless when it comes down to starting a relationship with the buyers. I'm so lucky to have landed this job and I don't want to lose it because I'm unprepared. Can anyone help me get it together? I'm really a smart person, in fact I made the best scores out of everyone in my real estate course (not that it matters - nothing matters but that exam). And I have a sincere passion for this for so many reasons. I also happen to live in one of the few cities in the country that is in a real estate bubble, and the market is pretty good here. I'm scared of all the contracts, though. I hardly recieved any training as far as that goes. My company has some form of training, I'm not sure what it's going to do for me yet. I also question whether or not people will take me seriously as I'm young, and short, and (not to sound conceited) pretty. I wonder if they will see me as a silly girl playing dress up who needs to leave the business to the big boys. I have proper attire, though. I am competent enough to know not to do anything I'm not sure of, and to always get help where I need it, but I'm just wondering if anyone can give me some advice. It's getting ready to be my first day on the job: now what?

I used to be a registered Republican but they can't seem to find anyone that supports their own platform. I've grown tired of the party dictating and interfering in local elections as well. I've begun looking at third parties to see if any of them follow my beliefs. Not necessarily to a T but pretty close. So far some of them come close but have major hiccups such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So here are my beliefs. Which political party do you believe I best affiliate with?

1. The most important thing for our gov. to do is protect our rights and our country.
2. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought and whether you agree with them or not there isn't anything we can do about it. We must support our troops and support a stabilization of those countries and training their security personnel.
3. We must find a way to balance the budget.
4. We must stop spending so much money.
5. We need a line item veto for the President.
6. States need to make more decisions. (Gay marriage (I am against gy marriage), abortion etc...)
7. Overturn Roe v. Wade and let each state decide for themselves. (I myself am against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in jeapordy, rape, and incest.
8. Gun control should be limited. (Citizens shouldn't have bazookas and rocket launchers and other types of weapons). However cities should not ban hand guns and other weapons necessary for defense.
9. Health care should be left to a free market. Gov. screws up enough and throws enough of our money away already, why would we give them health care.
10. The U.S. must operate debt free of all foreign debt and ultimately debt free as a country. I know it seems impossible, it's just how I believe it should be. : )

I have other beliefs and feelings but these are some of the key points for me. So according to these which party do you believe I should be affiliated with? Maybe none of them?
10.
I had looked at Libertarian but they are adamantly opposed to both Afghanistan and Iraq. For the record I believe we should declare wars and don't understand why we haven't since WWII.

Hi,

I should be coming to USA on H2B program to work temporarily.

But aside from that, I am self employed where I earn commission from websites, promoting physical products (affiliate marketing).

The company whose products I promote is UK based company and they send me earned commission 2 times a month (bank wire transfer).

So, my question is: How should I file taxes for this affiliate income while being non resident alien in the USA?

I am not in the USA yet, but I want to be prepared for this and know what to do when the time comes.

Thanks in advance!
I am not citizen of USA nor UK.

Hey

My friend told me that he had read, that there are people making over $100,000 a month doing something called affiliate marketing.

If so where can I do it.

Thank you

without these accounts and how do i get paid,what are the kind of affiliate marketing websites i can join to make money online?

INFORMATION SHARING AND DISCLOSURE

Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or non-affiliated companies except to provide products or services you've requested, when we have your permission, or under the following circumstances:

* We provide the information to trusted partners who work on behalf of or with Yahoo! under confidentiality agreements. These companies may use your personal information to help Yahoo! communicate with you about offers from Yahoo! and our marketing partners. However, these companies do not have any independent right to share this information.
* We respond to subpoenas, court orders, legal process, or to any legitimate request by authorities with which we must comply.
* We believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Yahoo!'s terms of use, or as otherwise required by law.
* This is within the Yahoo! group, for the purposes described under “Information Collection & Use” above (for example, various companies in the Yahoo! group are responsible for storing and processing your information in order to deliver content to you).
* Yahoo! may transfer information about you if Yahoo! acquires, or is acquired by or merged with, another company. In this event, Yahoo! will notify you before information about you is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy.

Yahoo! displays targeted advertisements based on personal information. Advertisers (including ad serving companies) may assume that people who interact with, view, or click targeted ads meet the targeting criteria—for example, women ages 18-24 from a particular geographic area.

* Yahoo! does not provide any personal information to the advertiser when you interact with or view a targeted ad. However, by interacting with or viewing an ad you are consenting to the possibility that the advertiser will make the assumption that you meet the targeting criteria used to display the ad.
* Yahoo! advertisers include financial service providers (such as banks, insurance agents, stock brokers and mortgage lenders) and non-financial companies (such as stores, airlines, and software companies).

Yahoo! works with vendors, partners, advertisers, and other service providers in different industries and categories of business. For more information regarding providers of products or services that you've requested please read our detailed reference links.

Almost all economic experts have said this is a lie. Even bush's top 2 banking appointees have said this is a lie.

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.

CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won't respond.

In fact, bush's own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"


Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.

CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.

CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure.

Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.

Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.

So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Federal reseve chairman, ben bernanke,appointed by bush, said the community reinvestment act had nothing to do with the crisis.
FDIC chairwoman, shelia blair, appointed by bush, said the same things.

However, dozens of yahoo posters keep saying it caused the crisis.

Who is right?

Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.
CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
sorry, dozens of top economists and many top republicans all agree...the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis. Sorry you guys won't accept the fact that bush loaned 440 billion and created the bubble.

Bush appointees Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, both republicans, have stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis.

In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis.
Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech:

Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.
CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.