We are an immediate loan specialist in Sidney, 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 Sidney 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.
What do you see as the role of the federal government? Much of the federal gov's revenue comes from taxes. More government programs means more taxes. Do you really believe it is justified that the gov make people pay so much more for programs that they don't need and many of them dob't want? Why can't you let the private sector deal with things that have nothing to do with the defense of the country? Plus, all of this unnecessary spending is driving this country further into debt. In this economic crisis, we need to prioritize: national security should be the fed. government's primary focus, and we should cut a lot of these unconstitutional, unnecessary programs that are bringing this country down economically. The debt is a bigger problem than people seem to realize. Republicans are to blame as well. But I'm asking for answers from democrat-leaning people, liberals if you label yourself as such, and people who may not particularly call themselves anything, maybe independent, but those that lean left, toward big government spending. Thank you for your answers in advance.
In order to provide a safety net, the government needs to be well-funded. That does mean more taxes from those who have been lucky and successful. Without that safety net a simple illness or unemployment at age 55 could wipe out a person's entire life savings and push them into bankruptcy. Without that safety net a child with downs syndrome or autism could ruin your family financially. Without that safety net a pink slip could also mean a forclosure and loss of medical care to your family. Liberals believe that this is too harsh of a punishment for a person who may have worked hard their entire life. Therefore we want pograms which will protect those people from falling under the bus. We think ignoring them is bad policy, ignoring them will create a permanent underclass of ignorant peasant rabble where there could have been citizens with dignity and opportunity to rise up and join their middle-class neighbors.
[I don't label myself as a democrat/liberal -- I can't identify with either party. But, I do lean more toward the left than the right.] ohio THEORY, I don't have a problem with increased taxes, if and only if those taxes are used for the benefit of our population -- providing adequate support for our military veterans, providing strong education for our children, providing cultural opportunities/experiences for people (particularly children) who can't afford to go to the symphony/art museum/science museum/etc, providing places for us to all experience the wonder of our own world (national parks, etc). Again, in theory, I understand the logic that says "let the government take care of our physical safety, and leave the rest up to private industry." Let those who (a) have the greatest natural abilities/intelligence/skills, and/or (b) work the hardest be compensated with the greatest income, and therefore the greatest opportunities. Survival of the fittest. From my perspective, the problem with both these viewpoints (and thus, with your implicit suggestion that, "If only everyone realized that government should [insert ideological statement here], then everything would be great.") is that is seems to be in our human nature to be basically self-serving. If we give government more money to use as they see fit, they abuse that money and the power that comes with it. If we place an emphasis on private sector, then the people who lead the private sector abuse that power and become greedy. Our current economic crisis is as much about the greedy executives on Wall Street as it is about the greedy politicians in Washington. Executives try to make as much money for themselves as possible, screw up, and then Washington assumes that, if those executives are just bailed out, then they'll walk the straight and narrow from then on. So, to answer your original question, "What do you see as the role of the federal government?" I'd like to say that their role is to protect us from our enemies, both foreign and domestic...but within our two-party system, when it's "us" vs. "them," I think that makes us all our own enemies.
I agree with everything EDIK had to say except federal taxing for education, arts and entertainment, intrastate transportation(interstate remains federal), parks and so on. Taxation and revenue control for all of these along with entitlements should be the responsibility of the individual state legislating bodies and from there expedited to the local level so as to allow the constituents decide on what is best for their own communities. With localized government our right to live free wherever we want in this great country are not impeded or restricted. State guided localized government allows us to act on the freedoms promised to us in the constitution. Federal governments responsibility is to protect these freedoms. Nobody wants any American citizen to be denied the American dream. And it is not the federal governments right or responsibility to dictate what that dream is and how that dream is to be granted. Only to protect that dream.
Does the big theory include the armed forces and all the other departments like the FBI CIA HUD FEMA etc. Or are there too many people in congress like senator and congressman? Maybe cut them down to one per state and that's it. That would be better then you would have less lobbyists hence less cost to corporations. That would lead to cheaper goods maybe.
One word: incorporation. The act of incorporation gives a corporation an unfair advantage over not only non-incorporated business, but over individual's rights. If the laws of incorporation were only used as our founding fathers intended (non profitable necessities like toll roads, dams and power plants) we wouldn't need a big government to counteract the power of nondemocratic corporations.
Because we get to get free handouts.