What's Wrong With Flexible Spending Accounts

So if you don't know anything about what a flexible spending account is, here's a little breakdown.  A flexible spending account is an amount of money that is given to you and you are forced to pay back.  You set the amount of money that you want to receive and at the beginning of the year you receive a credit card with that amount of money on it.  The payback on the money is taken right out of your paycheck.  The payback is divided into 52 equal payments  or 26 biweekly payments or 12 equal payments so that it is paid back in one year.  Flexible spending accounts are  tied in with your insurance.  The only way to have a flexible spending account is to have insurance.  This is not a loan.  In a loan situation, a company gives you money, trusting that you"ll pay them back.  If you don't there is nothing that they can do to you.  They can't send you to jail and they can't garnish your wages.  They can't do anything except ding your credit score which can be damaging enough by itself.  This is not a loan in that you are forced to pay it since it is taken right out of your paycheck.  There is another reason that it is not a loan but we will get into that later.  Basically, the only way to default on a flexible spending account is to quit your job.  Finally a flexible spending account can only be used to cover the cost of medical treatments or dental treatments and to cover the cost of prescription medicine!


So that's the low down on a flexible spending account.  Sounds pretty good, right?  In some ways it's great.  Having a flexible spending account means that if you get sick and have to go to the doctor or you have a dental appt., you don't have to worry about having enough money to cover the cost because you already have the money with you on the flexible spending account.  Or if you get a prescription filled, you can use the flexible spending account to pay for your medicine!  Also money that you put on a flexible spending account cannot be taxed by the federal government.  So if you put $3000 on a felxible spending account, that money is not taxed!


So what's wrong with flexible spending accounts you ask?  Well several things.  For every one thing that sounds good one a flexible spending account, there is something that's bad about having a flexible spending account.  Let's see if you agree!


First would have to be the amount of money that you put on a flexible spending account.  Currently you can put up to $4000 dollars on a flexible spending account.  Starting in 2013, that amount will change from $4000 to $2500.  But that's not why I am complaining.  When I say the amount of money that's put on a flexible spending account is a problem, what I mean is that you have to "guess" on how much time your going to be sick this year.  How much your going to be a the doctor or how much your kids are going to be in the clinic or hospital.  How much time your going to be in the dentist.  Things like that.  My thing is, who in their right mind plans to be sick?  Who plans on going to the dentist expecting to have cavities?  Who plans on their kids breaking an arm?  Who plans like that?  I certainly don't and I hope that you don't either.  I don't think that there is anybody out there that plans to be unhealthy.  The truth is that you cannot plan on things happening.  It's like driving in a car and getting in a wreck.  Nobody plans to get involved in a wreck!  So basically you have to plan on getting sick and guess how much money your going to use that year.  Pretty much impossible.  If you don't put enough on a flexible spending account, you may have to start digging money out of your own pocket that you might not have.  This might get you into trouble in some cases.  On the other hand if you put too much on a flexible spending account and don't use it, well in that case your just going to lose it, which is my next topic.  Once you set the amount that you want to be put into the flexible spending account you cannot change it unless a qualifying event occurs such as the birth of a child or death of a spouse, etc.


Use it or lose it.  One major drawback is that the money must be spent within the coverage period as defined by the benefits plan coverage.  This can be different depending on the type of flexible spending account that you have.  There are several different types but for the most part, they are typically the same.  Some require that the money be used within 12 months while others give you a grace period.  The grace period usually is about 3 months but sometimes can be shorter.  Any money that is left unspent at the end of the coverage period is forfeited and can be applied to future plan administrative costs or can be equally allocated as taxable income among all plan participants.  This is why people call this the "Use it or Lose it" rule.  If you want to get technical, if you don't use some of the money and you lose it, they you are taxed on that money.  Basically you get taxed on money that you didn't have.  Let's say that you put $2000 on your flexible spending account.  They give you the $2000 at the beginning of the year.  You only use $1000 so you lose $1000.  Even though you paid $2000 back through payroll deductions, you still lose that money and then are taxed on the money that "they", the government, took back.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I'm not sure why you lose the money at all!  If you pay all the money back anyways, why do you lose that money if you don't spend it within a certain time frame?  You earned it, right?  They just gave it to you in advance, yet you are paying it all back with equal payments.  There is not a more devastating feeling than the government taking money away from you that you earned!  Well just one other which ties into my last topic.


Finally, a major drawback is where you spend the money.  The government has designated where you can spend the money that is on a flexible spending account.  The money that is on a flexible spending account must be spent on medical expenses, dental expenses, and prescription costs.  In certain cases it can be spent on things like childcare services.  Used to, you could spend the money on over the counter  medications but as of 2011, this feature has been taken away unless these over the counter medications are prescribed by your doctor of dentist.  However, I don't know of any doctor or dentist that prescribe over the counter medications.  This is the other reason that a flexible spending account is not a loan.  Unlike a loan, you cannot spend it wherever you want.  On a loan, you can spend the money where ever you want.  The only loans that you can't are a care loan or a house loan.


Audits.  This ties in with where you spend the money.  Anytime that you use the money, you are subject to an audit.  They can audit you every time you swipe the card, or they may never audit you at all.  It all up to "them".  What boggles me is why the government tells you where you can spend the money.  Especially when you earn it.  True that they give it to you at the beginning of the year, but if you pay it back then why does it matter where you spend the money?  It's your money and you earned it, yet the government tell you where to spend it!  In my opinion that's totally wrong!  Especially in a free country as we live in.  But that's government for you!


So tell me what you think?  Am I wrong or does what I'm saying have any merit to it at all?

Out Of Control Infringement

So my son is at his school's talent show.  I'm taking pictures and my wife is taking a video.  My son is 11 at the time and he really knows how to rock on a guitar!  Taught himself how to play he did!  It was awesome!  On of the best acts of the night!

So we go home after the show and then my wife decides post the video to Youtube.  No problem right?  Wrong!  Within a day or two I get a letter from Youtube that the video of MY son playing HIS guitar in a video that WE took, might have might violate copyright laws and therefore be copyright infringement!  But how?  This is a personal video!  We took it ourselves!  

So I got in contact with Youtube and asked how this could possibly be copyright infringement if we took the video ourselves!  I didn't add any type of other stuff into the video that would make it infringement!  The answer I got was this.  The video constituted copyright infringement because he was playing to a song that was copyrighted.  Because the song is in the video, even though I didn't add the song to the video personally, it still constitutes infringement!  I was thinking that this certainly couldn't be right!  So I decided to write to a copyright forum and see what they had to say.

I wrote to the forum and told them my situation.  I gave them another scenario that I was taking video around my house and went into my sons room where he was listening to the radio and then I posted the video to youtube and got an infringement letter.  The forums response was the same as Youtube.  They said that as soon as I posted the video with the song in it as public, that it became infringement even if I did not add the song to the video myself!  Simply that the song is in the video alone constitutes infringement.  

So in a nutshell, if you have ever posted a video to Youtube and it has music in it, chances are that you have broken the law, no matter how the music got there.  Unless of coarse you wrote the song yourself!  But is this the best thing for the music industry to be doing?  I mean, do they really need to pursue these copyright claims the way that they are?  Are not the people posting the videos with music in them in a sense promoting someone else's music?

Personally I think that big corporations like Sony and others should just stop heckling us peons about copyright infringement simply because there are way too many videos out there with music on them!  Every minute on Youtube, there is 24 hours worth of video uploaded.   You couldn't hire enough people to go through all that video footage just to see if there if copyrighted material or music on them!  Why even keep trying?  By posting YOUR music in OUR videos we are just helping promote YOUR music!  Essentially we are advertising for them and who doesn't want free advertising?  Corporate America I guess!

Look, when we go buy shoes at a store, no matter how cheap or expensive they are, we are promoting for that company.  Every shoe has at least two ways to identify it.  One is the name of the shoe, and the other is their logo that is incorporated onto the shoe, usually on either side of the shoe!  Same thing for cars.  When you buy a car, not only is the name of the car on the car but that company's logo is also on the car so people will know one way or another what type of car you are driving!  Clothing companies too!  Old Navy does it more than any other company I know of!  I would go as far as to challenge you to go into an Old Navy store and find something that doesn't have the words Old Navy blatantly obvious on their stuff!  It's all over it!  No matter what you buy from Old Navy, people won't even have to ask you where you got it from because it will be so obvious!  

But what if we didn't want to promote their product?  Do we have a choice?  Can I take these companies to court and demand that I don't want their logo or name on their stuff that I wear of theirs?  Probably not!  In most cases I would figure that I would be told to go shop somewhere else!  Not that it bothers me because it doesn't, but if it did then would I have a case?  Why when I don't want to promote a product, I'm forced too, but when I want to promote a song in a video I make, I can't!  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense!  Big companies every year save millions in advertising by making their customers the promoters of their product, yet big music companies get mad at their customers when they post music to homemade videos that might make them more sales in the long run!  Some of the best music I have in my music library is from videos that I saw on Youtube!  I watched a video, heard a song that sounded cool, got that song info and bought a rocking new CD!  And that's how Corporate America should view this!  People want to promote your music!  Why?  Because they like it and they want others to like it too!  They wouldn't post it to their video if they thought that it was trash and not worth listening too!  

Copyright infringement has gotten out of control.  It's so nit picky!  Most people who copyright infringe, don't even know that they are doing so!  If they did, would they really do it?  Highly doubtful!    Give your customers a break!  Look at it from our view!  People are not intending to break the law, but rather they want to promote the music that they love into their videos!  What's wrong with that?  Customers make or break companies.  When companies stab their customers in the back for petty things, that's when you may lose customers!  And you don't want negative customers!  While a happy customer might tell one person about their good experience, an angry customer will tell every person that they come in contact with about their bad experience!  So Corporate America, keep your customers happy and stop being so legalistic! 

Featured Video

So I was looking around on Youtube as sometimes I do, and I noticed this video that was in the "Featured Video" section. Most of the time they have some good things in that section and it's fun to look at some of the stuff that people come up with or what people are doing. However, this video was just too much.

The video title is, "baby eating habañero pepper". I thought, no way. Who would let a baby eat one of the hottest peppers on earth? Bad parents that's who! At first I thought that this must be a fake title. Someone who puts that title on their video to get people to look at it. After all, there is a video floating around Youtube that has almost the same title and when you click on it, the baby is eating a lemon, not a habañero pepper. So I decided to check it out.

At first I could not believe my eyes. There is a guy holding a habañero pepper right next to a baby! I was thinking, no way this guy would stick this in a baby's mouth. But he did! He held down the baby's arms and stuck it in the baby's mouth! Babies will eat anything so why would this be any different? I was in total shock. Who would do this? Why are they doing this? This is child abuse and these people should be put in jail! Those were my thoughts when I saw this video.

What amazes me is that this video is a "Featured Video" on the Youtube website! I don't know how they judge what video's should be "Featured" but this is not one of them! What amazes me even more is that this video has been up on Youtube for almost 4 years and has had over 600,000 hits and is still up and running. To me, that is just uncalled for and should be taken down from Youtube.

You can see the video here.

If you watch this video please report this video to Youtube as child abuse!

The baby eating the lemon but the title says habañero can be seen here.

The $14,000 Word

So I am really confused about this issue over whether the US Government is going to give Christian Lopez a $14,000 "tax liability" over catching Derek Jeter's 3000th hit ball. Why such a high tax liability? Since Christian caught the ball and it marked Derek Jeter's 3000th hit, the Yankee's gave him what they claim is $50,000 dollars worth of "stuff". So what all did they give him? Let's see, four luxury suite tickets for each of the team's remaining home games, including the postseason, three bats, three balls and two jerseys all signed by Jeter. I'm not real sure the total value of all that stuff, but my guess is that all this stuff is overpriced, especially the stuff that is signed. Oh and speaking of overpriced, I forgot to mention that Christian also received front-row seats for Sunday's game, which the Yankee's report sell for up to $1,358.90 each. If that's not overpriced then I don't know what is.

Now here's where this tax liability becomes really tricky. It's going to be up to the Yankee's and how they classify what they gave to Christian as. If the Yankee's say that what they gave Christian was a prize for catching Jeter's 3000th ball, then he could, and most likely will, get slammed with this $14,000 tax liability. However, if they say that what they gave him was a gift then he won't get the tax liability. Yes, that's right, all this comes down to one simple word. But which one are the Yankee's going to use?

In reality, either word would be correct. So let's look at each definition.

PRIZE - a reward for victory or superiority, as in a contest or competition. Was it a contest? Not really! A competition? Only in the sense that tons of people were all going to the same ball at the same time and it came down to who got the ball first! So in this sense, the Yankee's could say that Christian was given some prizes for catching the ball.

GIFT - something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present. When reading this definition, you know that what the Yankee's did for Christian was to "honor an occasion". Did they expect payment for what they gave Christian? No sir! They fully gave all this stuff to Christian without expecting anything in return. So in this sense, the Yankee's could say that Christian was given some gifts for catching the ball.

Like I said, either one is right, but which one is right to tell the US Government? In my opinion, the Yankee's should classify all the stuff that they gave Christian as gifts! No one wants to be all excited to receive some stuff from your favorite team, just to be slapped in the face by the US Government with a $14,000 tax. If it were me, I would probably wish that I was never at the game. Not an image that the Yankee's would want on any fan. Also, I know that Christian has stated that he will ask his parents for help with the $14,000 if it comes down to that, but what if they don't help or have the money? Then Christian would most likely have to sell some of the stuff that he got for free. Oh but it wouldn't be selling, rather giving it away because the money that he gets is going right back to Uncle Sam. I guess that's what they mean when they say that free stuff really isn't free.

I just hope that the Yankee's make the right decision in whatever decision that they make. If they don't then your going to have people all over the US screaming foul.

Are We Obsessed With Killing?

So I was watching some of the Emmy Awards earlier today and I was actually surprised at how much this show called Dexter was nominated for awards! Now they didn't get any, although director Steve Shill did win one for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, but I was still surprised at the amount of times the series kept popping up!

If you don't know what the series Dexter is about here is a quick breakdown.

Dexter is about a guy named Dexter Morgan who works for the Miami Police Department as a blood spatter expert for the Homicide unit. When serial killers come along he finds out who they are and then leads the Miami PD astray just long enough so that they cannot find the serial killer. Then Dexter goes after the Serial killer and kills them himself. Basically, Dexter is a serial killer of serial killers!

So I was wondering if we are just attached to watching shows that had to do with murdering people! What makes the killing of others so attractive?

I wanted to write about current movies that were in the theaters that had to do with killing people, but currently where I live there are only 2 movies out there.

The first one is Piranha. Not really a murder movie yet people get killed by psycho piranha's. I guess that some movies like this one that have lots of killings in them also get a lot of popularity. Just look at any of the Friday the 13th movies of any of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies! At least 10 people get murdered in those movies each and every time! Yet people seem to like watching people being murdered! That's why they keep making these movies!

The second movie out there is The Expendables. You want to talk about killing people then this is the movie to talk about! The Expendables has approximately 180 people getting killed in the movie, yet this movie has been the number one rated movie almost since it opened! This weekend was the first time it had dropped since being number one. This weekend it dropped to number three.

But lets look at the cast of The Expendables and see just how much each one of them has killed in their careers!

• Mickey Rourke – 28 Kills on screen in 61 Films – 0.45 kills

per film.

Most Kills:- 15 as Marv in Sin City

Kills in The Expendables: 0

• Jason Statham – 147 Kills on screen in 23 Films – 6.4 kills per film.

Most Kills:- 60 as ‘Farmer’ in ‘In the name of the King’

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 80

• Bruce Willis - 168 Kills on screen in 62 Films – 2.7 per film.

Most Kills – 26 as Korban Dallas in Fifth Element

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 0

• Jet Li – 327 Kills on screen – 39 Films – 8.3 per film.

Most Kills – 50 as Kit Li in High Risk

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 30

• Sylvester Stallone – 334 Kills on Screen – 50 Films – 6.7 per film.

Most Kills – 87 as John Rambo (2008)

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 60

• Arnold Schwarzenegger – 513 Kills on screen – 31 Films – 16.5 per film.

Most Kills – 102 as Matrix in Commando

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 0

• Dolph Lundgren – 632 Kills on screen – 36 Films – 17.5 per film.

Most Kills – 60 as Frank in the Punisher

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 10

THE BLOODY FACTS:

TOTALS: 2149 Combined Kills in 302 Films.

1. HOW HIGH – If you laid all the bodies these guys have racked up in their movies and stack em up like a single tower morbid game of Jenga it would be the height of 2149 feet, 655 metres or 0.4 of a mile which is roughly the same size as five London Eye big wheels, Two Eiffel Towers or as tall as 13 Godzilla’s (Japanese 1954 original version).

2. HOW FAR- Alternatively if you don’t fancy stacking you could lay each body-bag head to toe (presuming each guy exterminated was 6 foot tall, which is about right height for your average villain) it will total up to about 12,894 feet, 2.5 Miles or 3,930 metres in Length. That’s 9.8 times around an Olympic track that would take Usain Bolt about six minutes to reach the end of running at full pelt.

3. BLOODBATH! – If the average human body contains 5.6 litres of blood and presuming after each life our action stars takes the bodies loses around half that, then there would be enough blood to fill 10,588 pints of beer, 22.3 baths of water and is three times the amount of blood used to blast out of the bed in A Nightmare on Elm Street!

Yes all of this is so interesting! And yes I did copy all of those last statistics about The Expendables from a site called "heyuguys". Did you really think that I had all that time to all this type of research? Heck no!

My whole point is why are we so obsessed with people getting killed and why do we flock to see these type of movies?

I wonder if we have created this type of society on our own. I mean, what if we are the ones who watched these type of things as we were children and then wanted to expand our imagination and make something that was already violent, even more violent. So I decided to do some digging and here's what I found from the Parents Television Council.

Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of studies examining the connection between media violence and violence in real-life. In 1952, the United States House of Representatives was holding hearings to explore the impact of television violence and concluded that the "television broadcast industry was a perpetrator and a deliverer of violence." Then in 1972, the Surgeon General's office conducted an overview of existing studies on television violence and concluded that it was "a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior." In his testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld said, ""It is clear to me that the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action… There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come."

Remember that these studies were done way back when! I really wonder what they would say now! But I'm talking about murder, not just violence! It is estimated that by the time an average child leaves elementary school, he or she will have witnessed 8,000 murders and over 100,000 other acts of violence. By the time that child is 18 years-of-age; he or she will witness 200,000 acts of violence, including 40,000 murders.

So my question is when did all of this become ok? When did we as a society make it ok to make violent movies? Make movies that we kill people? Are we promoting murder? Is that why murder is on the rise in America? We allow music to be produced that talks about murdering people. We allow video games to be put out there that puts you in the roll of a murderer!

Wether you know it or not, you can stop it. But how! It's really easy. Don't buy it! In America we produce what sells. If violent movies are selling, that's just what Hollywood is going to produce! If violent video games are a hot selling item, then your going to see more and more violent video games popping up. I guess that's why I like Nintendo so much! They hardly have any violent video games on their system!

If you don't think that you have the power to change things things buy not buying them, think about this. You go to the movies. You have just bought your ticket to see the movie The Expendables. Just kidding! You've got your tickets to go see Toy Story 3. Your seeing this movie with someone close to you. You get a large popcorn to share and the both of you get a medium drink. Now, how much did that just cost you? I'd be willing to be that you just spent around $28 dollars just on the tickets a popcorn and two drinks! Does that not sound like you have just been ripped off? When Toy Story 3 comes out on DVD, you are going to be able to buy the DVD, an 18 pack of microwave popcorn, and two 3 liter cokes for less than $28!

So why do we pay for things like popcorn and cokes at a movie theater, knowing that we are getting ripped off? If we were in a grocery store we would complain to the manager that their prices were horrible and if they didn't change them we would never shop there again? Since we allow ourselves to get ripped off in a movie theater, they continue to charge those prices. The longer you pay for those items at a very high price the longer they are going to stay high priced. However, if you refused to buy their product then prices would plummet!

That was kind of off the subject but the point was that as long as people continue to buy into violent movies and such, violence is what is going to be produced! It's just like when people say, "Sex sells". It has a truth to it because you see half naked girls on beer commercials, magazines, in nascar, and in all other types of things. Sex sells, and so does violence! Especially murder!

Did Roger Clemens Ever Really Use Steroids?

On Monday, August 30, 2010, seven-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens will be arraigned on federal charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of Congress.

But did he really do the things that he is accused of doing? Did Roger Clemens really use steroids and if so, where is the proof? I'm a proof kind of guy, and when someone is accused of doing something, I want to see the proof! However, this case that he is involved in right now just seems to be a he said/she said type scenario! Well, I guess since there is no females involved it would rather be a he said/he said, but you know what I mean.

Roger Clemens testified before Congress back in February of 2008 denying that he ever used steroids during his career as a major league baseball pitcher. However Clemens' former trainer, Brian McNamee has come out and told Congress that Clemens was lying. McNamee has said that he himself personally gave Clemens steroids. To make matters even worse for Clemens, one of his former teammates, Andy Pettitte, has also come out and said that he knows for a fact that Clemens was using steroids.

Even after all this, Clemens still maintains that he never used steroids at any point in his career!

What I would like to see is a video or a picture or something that proves that he was using steroids. I don't like the fact that Clemens says he never used and these other two people say that he did, and now Clemens is accused of lying because he is outnumbered. Where is the justice in that? We need proof people! This scenario is just as bad as someone being accused of murder, yet no one can find a body!

I'll be real honest, I have never really liked Roger Clemens! I think the guy is cocky! To be really honest, I think the guy is a jerk, but I wouldn't go out and accuse him of doing something like using steroids unless I had solid evidence, such as a picture or video, of Clemens actually doing the things that he was accused of doing! That's just not right!

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like to me that I keep hearing about more and more cases where they are based on hearsay rather than being based on proof! What is this country coming too?

Is Wal-Mart Hurting Themselves?

Most everybody has heard of Wal-Mart. There is probably one in your city. Wal-Mart is one of the biggest chains of stores in America and it continues to grow!

Recently, Wal-Mart has introduced a fairly new program called site-to-store where a customer can order something online and have it shipped to their local Wal-Mart to be picked up at no cost to the customer. Basically if you order something online from Wal-Mart and have it shipped to your local Wal-Mart store, they will fork out the shipping cost. However, you will have to pay the shipping if you opt to have whatever your ordering shipped to your house or business.

This can save customers tons of money if they shop online quite frequently. After all, every store has an online site that offers tons of things that you cannot get at your local store. Some stores offer free shipping if an order is over a certain amount. For example, you might be able to get free shipping on an item you purchase from Best Buy if you spend at lease $100 on it. But with site-to-store from Wal-Mart, every item won't cost you a dime in shipping as long as you opt to have it shipped to a local Wal-Mart store.

So is Wal-Mart helping themselves or hurting themselves? The answer is both. I'll give you reasons for both.

The first would be that Wal-Mart is helping themselves by offering the free shipping if you have the item that you order sent to your local Wal-Mart to be picked up. This is drawing crowds of people to their site for this simple reason. People know that most other sites will charge shipping unless they are having a free shipping promotion or they are offering free shipping on orders of "X" amount of dollars. Wal-Mart ensures that customers never have to pay for shipping as long as the customer ships to a local Wal-Mart. This is great for those who would rather go online and shop rather than go out in town and avoid the crowds. It also is great for people who go online to shop for things not offered at the local store. Wal-Mart, as well as every other retailer like them, offers thousands of items not offered in their local store. Essentially, customers can save a few dollars to hundreds of dollars if they opt to have the items that they are ordering shipped to their local Wal-Mart.

The second is that Wal-Mart is actually hurting their sales by doing site-to-store. This is done by Wal-Mart offering the same items online that they do in their local stores. Wal-Mart does not honor their online prices in their own store even though they are the same place. Also Wal-Mart does not offer an instant pickup like does Best Buy or some other retailers across the country. If you don't know what an instant pickup is, it is where you buy something online and can go to your local store and pick it up immediately if it is available in your local store. Wal-Mart does not offer either of these services. So if I find something cheaper on walmart.com, a DVD for example, and print it out and take it into the local store, even though they are the same store, Wal-Mart will not honer their online prices in their local store. Also if I find something like a DVD and buy it online, I cannot just go down to the local Wal-Mart and pick it up. I have to wait for it to either be shipped to me or shipped to the store via site-to-store.

Most of the time, Wal-Marts online rates are cheaper than their in store rates. Wal-Mart usually offers such things as Blu-Ray DVD's for around $10 cheaper online, than if you would buy them in the store. For this reason, you can get tons of stuff cheaper on their online site if your willing to wait a few days to get it and you can save even more by avoiding shipping via site-to-store.

So is Wal-Mart hurting themselves? Only time will tell, but I say yes. As more and more people are discovering that they can order things online from Wal-Mart cheaper than they can go get them at their local store, the popularity of site-to-store continues to grow. Over time, this can effect the sales inside the local stores. Not only that but this can also create smaller freight trucks for Wal-Mart, due to all the site-to-store merchandise being shipped on regular trucks. This means that in some cases, Wal-Mart might have to send more than one truck to deliver their merchandise to the stores.

While Wal-Mart may not be hurting themselves with things that are online that a customer cannot purchase in the store, they are hurting themselves by offering lower prices on things that are online that you can go to your local store and purchase.

Maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but I bet that the site-to-store program won't be around much longer. I'd be willing to bet that it's gone within the next five years.