We are an immediate loan specialist in Berkeley, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to Berkeley occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
Bain Capital: investment company helped start Staples, Clear Channel, Burger King, Domino's Pizza, etc. with a few failures but more success than failures. Obama's administration: $1.5 trillion with few jobs created and used public tax funded money for these, one major failure was Solyndra. So what's worse?
What Obama has been doing is Venture Socialism. The govt should not be making bets using taxpayer money, especially when some of them are not really bets but more like payoffs to contributors and fundraisers as was the case with Solyndra. If there is money to made why aren't the real capitalists investing in these things?
Neither is bad. What is your point? Solyndra was a failure but the government invests in and subsidizes many enterprises. In the area of alternative energy, the Chinese government is taking the issue very seriously and is pouring huge amounts of money into its development. They are determined to be the world leaders in this field and they appear to be doing quite well. If we don't get serious we will have ceded the field to China, if we haven't already.
This is what happens when you let the government invest in their cash cows they support ~ 1999 new-jersey Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises ! By P.J. Gladnick | September 25, 2008 . This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine): In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. Get that? Pressure by the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans by lowering its credit requirements. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' That would be the same Franklin Raines whom the Washington Post identified as a mortgage and housing adviser for the Obama campaign until that newspaper told us not to rely on its own reporting. We return you now to the article that the New York Times wishes didn't exist: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the new-jersey Times article: ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' Yup. The conservative American Enterprise Institute was accurately warning about this impending financial disaster back in 1999. If you don't believe me, then check out the New York Times archive.
"After examining 77 Bain investments made between 1984 and 1999, the paper found that 22% of the companies declared bankruptcy or closed within eight years of Bain's initial investment. And poor performance led Bain to forfeit its investment in another 8%." stopped being a venture capitalist somewhere along the line and began to operate in leveraged buyouts. I suppose, though, that since you condemn Obama for Solyndra, you can condemn Romney for 17 company closings.
Public funds are much worse. Privately, you have a choice if you want to invest. However, it is law for you to pay taxes, and you don't get to choose what public investments you think will pay off. Also, I get money myself if a private investment pays off, but I don't get anything back when the government's investments pay off.
Public funds are used all of the time to subsidize say, the drilling of dry wells by oil companies. You would be simply amazed at how much the citizen at-large subsidizes big coal and oil.
You do realize that almost all the TARP money has been returned to the Treasury, and that most of the "forced investments" made during the financial crisis have been profitable. Arguably, without those government guarantees, things might now be much worse.
Conservatives caused the housing bubble. Dodd-Frank was passed after the housing bubble. You are clueless. All your numbers are wrong and your timeline is embarrassing.
Is this a trick question ? Obama.......of course Obama coudn't run a paper route ' 'in the black 'in the private sector
How about they pay taxes like evereyne else and not use tax funds to send jobs overseas? (see Whirlpool)