We are an immediate loan specialist in Iowa, 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 Iowa 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. 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.
No comparison. Obama's endeavor into "ventures" made him the Bernie Maddoff of Green Energy
Romney may have had an 80% success rate, but it doesn't say anything about his abilities to run a country where you must be concerned about the welfare of all the people, which means creating jobs, improving the economy and foreign relations. . Running a business is a lot different than running a Country especially a Venture Capital and Leveraged Buyout business. When you run that type of business, your only concern is increasing profits for yourself and the company. The employees and the welfare of those employees of the companies you buy and sell are nonentities; the towns or cities that depend on those businesses you sell are nonentities. Money is the only "entity" that counts. Romney's 25 years at Bain Capital do not say much for his job creation capabilities. Any jobs created or lost while Romney ran Bain were entirely incidental to Bain's Venture Capital and Leverage Buyout profit making for Bain, Romney and their investors. Company Employees certainly never entered the business equation of buying and selling a Company. In addition, Romney took credit for creating 100 thousand jobs at Staples, when in fact those jobs were created well after he sold the Company. The main purpose of a Leveraged Buyout and/or Venture Capital Business is to buy up Companies at as cheap a price as possible, turn them around spending the least possible amount and then selling it a high profit to the Company, Person or Country that offers the best price. Romney has recently proved his lack of diplomacy and unrealistic knowledge of foreign relations.
Romney's claim to economic success resulted in making money for wealthy constituent investors at the expense of "the rest of us". That plan is part of America's problem as jobs go over seas. The people w/ eyes open see how the rep party promotes the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.
Sorry, skippy, the unemployment in the U. S. is over 11%, that's employing real math, no longer Obama's. Obama inherited an financial device created via the liberals. i presumed the left replaced into against company salary and espresso taxes? you could no longer have it the two techniques.
That was after the Bain bailout. Republican Senate nominee Mitt Romney's rescue of a business consulting firm was achieved in part by convincing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to forgive roughly $ 10 million of the company's debts, according to sources close to the deal and federal records obtained by The Boston Globe. Romney, whose business acumen has been the cornerstone of his campaign, has said saving the Bain & Co. consulting firm from the brink of bankruptcy in 1991 was the accomplishment that most convinced him he had the mettle to be a US senator. Bain & Co. and the FDIC agreed to the deal after months of intense negotiations. Moreover, bankers say debt forgiveness is relatively routine when a company is at risk of collapse. But the $ 10 million cost to the FDIC raises the question of whether Romney's success, as well as the resurrection of Bain & Co., came partially at the expense of the federal agency that protects US bank deposits.
Nope. Not only would this not be "fair," but it would also be astoundingly inaccurate. I became a Labor Advocate after alzheimered Reagan's puppeteers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, James Baker, and peripherally Bush the dad) declared all-out WAR on this nation's full-time workers by having their scripted puppet Reagan up and fire PATCO (the Air Traffic Controllers Union), starting a massive assault on all union workers or any full-time workers with benefits as the ERA OF BOTTOMLESS-PIT CORPORATE GREED began. Romney and Bain Capital were part of this unleashed Pandora's Box of corporate greed, as more and more CEOs realized they had a GREEN LIGHT from the Reagan/Bush White House to "downsize"---get rid of workers before pensions were vested by hook or crook in order to "increase profit margins," and here's were Bain and Romney (and their corporate-raiding ilk) came in. Since tax-dodging (and worse) Romney is refusing to let the American people see his hidden 10 years worth of tax returns, how can you possibly know (or even believe) that Romney's "business record" has the 80% "success" rate when there is no visible record that this is true? He's lied before about his record, including when he was running for Governor in Massachusetts and was required to have been a Massachusetts resident for a specific period (which he had NOT been, although he told Massachusetts voters that he was). After he got in, then the truth came out. America CANNOT AFFORD to have Romney the vulture, the proven BULLY, the sociopath, the liar, the always-fail-policy pusher in the White House. He will prove to be the NAIL in the COFFIN for this already-GOP-damaged naton. You are pulling numbers out of some convenient orifice, little misinformed neocon wannabe. I suggest you try going to and click on each item for details, or go to whitehouse.gov and recovery.gov for a more accurate analysis of President Obama's high number of successes---and these successes have been iowa SPITE OF the deliberate sabotage from the far-right-wing nation-destroying extremists in control of Congress. We have had more than 32 months, 32 CONSECUTIVE months with private-sector jobs growth, and there are 32 states that have well below the national 8.2% unemployment rating. Even the 8.2% rate means that for every single 100 job applicants, 92 of them have been able to find jobs. If right-wing Republicans had not vowed on Inauguration Day in 2009 to "bring Congress to a standstill and block all legislation from Obama, even if beneficial to the United States" (which is what they've tried hard to do), I'm willing to bet that our national unemployment rate would drop to at least 7% (jobs bills pending would have been PASSED, for example). Your false claim of dollars going "overseas" is applicable to the OUTSOURCING corporate-colluding GOP, but not to President Obama. You are blowing smoke. The efforts of the Obama administration have been to BRING OUR MANUFACTURING COMPANIES HOME or, if they will not return to U.S. soil, then ELIMINATE GOP SUBSIDIES that reward these companies for moving overseas and give those subsidies to the companies who set up operations on American soil (see the Insourcing efforts at whitehouse.gov). Thanks to President Obama's "stimulus" we now have more than 30 states with new or rebuilt MANUFACTURING PLANTS that make alternative energy products---the wave of the future with the potential for making the U.S. a WORLD LEADER in the making, exporting, and sales of renewable energy resources (see recovery.gov or read Michael Grumwald's "The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era").
When you shut down 5 good companies with good paying jobs and create 1 ( Staples ) with low wage jobs that is NOT my idea of success . But is sure is his . One man's success is another man's unemployment . I wouldn't vote for that lying scum Romney for a billion dollars .
The democrats believe Obama has done a spectacular job in advancing their agenda...regardless of what happened to our tax dollars. Democrat President Wilson (1913-1918) said, “You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.” He may have been the first democrat to appreciate the potential use of multiculturalism (“If it’s white or American, trash it!”) in deconstructing the Constitution, saying, “No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.” Obama put it this way (without using a teleprompter!): "Every nation is exceptional in its own way." Democrat President Roosevelt (1933-1945) “let it all hang out” in his speech before Congress on January 11, 1944: “We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights...” which included: -The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation -The right of every family to a decent home -The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health -The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment. Democrat President Johnson’s Great Society became the largest redistribution of wealth program in our history. Obama has thrust national healthcare upon us, the hallmark of all socialist and welfare states. 25 years ago none of the above was common knowledge. It is only because of more honest, unbiased reporting on the Internet, talk radio and Fox News (all non-existent 25 years ago!) that today we know that the democrat party has been gradually changing America into a European style welfare state. -2/4/10 Gallup poll: 61% of liberals have a positive view of socialism. -6/2/11 Gallup poll: 71% of democrats favor re-distributing wealth. -Now they have national health care, the foundation of all welfare and socialist states. And Obama’s economy reflects his party’s aspirations: Obama said, "I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground." (3/3/09 he bragged about that, three and a half years later the unemployment has been over 8.1%. Maybe he meant “Shovel ready jobs for government union workers”? -7/8/11 U. S. News Report (usnews.com): The actual number of private sector jobs decreased since 2008. Government jobs increased. During the worst of the downturn, the private sector was hammered with massive job losses, while the public sector held fairly steady. -6/8/12 Investors Business Daily: “Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4%, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8%. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4% increase.” -6/11/12 Cato Institute ( school enrollment has minimally increased over the last few decades, but teacher employment has exploded — the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than student enrollment over the last 40 years.” Furthermore, on a per pupil basis, the inflation-adjusted average cost of a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000.” 8/15/12 USA Today/Gannet: -More than 21,000 retired federal workers receive lifetime government pensions of $100,000 or more per year -Government pensions are vastly more generous than those in the private sector," says economist Veronique de Rugy of the market-oriented Mercatus Center -The average federal pension pays $32,824 annually. The average state and local government pension pays $24,373, Census data show. The average military pension is $22,492. ExxonMobilExxon Corporation, which has one of the best remaining private pensions, pays an average of $18,250 per retiree -All federal retirees receive health benefits. -Pension payments cost $70 billion last year, plus $13 billion for retiree health care. Taxpayers face a $2 trillion unfunded liability — the amount needed to cover future benefits — for these programs, according to the government's audited financial statement.
Obamanomics 101 ~ Solyndra: Yes, It Was Possible To See This Obama Economic Failure Coming . There’s quite a bit of back and forth across the political aisle about Solyndra. Does throwing $500 million at a company that failed show that all government tech pump priming is a waste of money? From the other side, well, sure, some will fail but the program as a whole is going to deliver just great results. I admit to being biased, of course I am: I have zero faith that people spending taxpayers money are going to make better decision than people investing their own money. And Lord knows, there are enough privately funded companies that go belly up to show that even that’s not a high bar to try and clear. However, here’s Kevin Drum, here’s Stephen Lacey, they’re both making the case for the defense of the loan. A goodly part of which seems to be that Solyndra failed because silicon prices came down, something that no one at all could have foreseen. Thus Solyndra’s non-silicon technology got bushwhacked by something no one could have anticipated. Well, as someone who works in the markets for these weird metals (but no, not silicon) I can tell you that it was obvious that the price would come down. Blatantly obvious that this would happen. Traditionally solar cells have been made from ingot that doesn’t quite meet the standards for computer chips, the rejects from that industry. Then solar scaled to a point where that just wasn’t a sufficient supply and the price soared. Soaring prices, as what is it, page 3 or page 4 of the econ 101 textbook tell us, lead to an increase in those willing to supply. And as sure as eggs is eggs companies around the world scrambled to invest in silicon production facilities. Yes, we could see this happening yes it was obvious that much larger amounts of silicon would be coming to market and yes, we do normally associate that with prices falling again. But OK, let’s say that no one realized this: not a good sign on the part of those considering whether to make a $500 million loan guarantee I’d say. If I, a minor trader in very minor metals indeed, can predict such things then it shouldn’t be beyond people several pay grades higher than I am. However, there’s another way of looking at this entirely. Forget silicon, look at the other solar cell technologies. Specifically, look at First Solar: the largest supplier at the time I believe. Now this is from 2010, a year after the Solyndra loan was agreed, however: Manufacturing costs for the major competitor to all solar PV manufacturers (not just the silicon ones) were well below, in 2009, what Solyndra’s costs were predicted to be. It isn’t just silicon prices which made them uncompetitive, that unexpected drop in prices which did them in. They weren’t competitive with the non-silicon manufacturing methods either. And now out big question should be: was all of this known back in 2009 when the decision was made to offer the loan guarantee? Solyndra’s revenue in the nine months ending Oct 3 was $58.814 million and their cost of goods sold for the same period was $108.321 million for the total of 17.2 Megawatts of CIGS solar panels shipped in that period. Almost half of that revenue (49 per cent) came from three customers - USE Umwelt Sonne Energie, Carlisle Syntec and Alwitra. That works out to: •A sale price of $3.42 per Watt •A cost of $6.29 per Watt Note that in Solyndra’s case, there is not an exact clear comparison with other flat panel modules – because what Solyndra considers a “module” includes some mounting equipment. Anup Jacob, a Solyndra investor at Virgin Green Fund, told us in August that the company’s install costs come to around 50 cents a watt, lower than the $2 to $4 a watt install costs for other thin film companies. Arguably, the lower installations cost could drop Solyndra’s cost per watt to anywhere from $4.79 to $2.79 ($6.29 minus $1.50 to $3.50 for the lower installation costs.) With a $3.42 sale price, that means Solyndra might be able to coax some profit from their billion dollar investment. Attention Wall Street: trying to figure this out with a straight face is why you pay high prices for hardworking, replaceable associates. Compare this to First Solar. First Solar’s average manufacturing cost per watt declined by $0.23 per watt, or 21.3%, from $1.08 in the three months ended September 27, 2008 to $0.85 in the three months ended September 26, 2009. Or compare it to a silicon solar vendor like Trony Solar. Trony Solar’s average manufacturing cost was $1.15 per watt for the fiscal year ending June 30 this year, the company said in its SEC filing. From June to September, the company lowered the cost to $1.09 per watt. Solyndra must also compete head-on with the plunging price of flat plate panels from BP Solar, Suntech, Mitsubishi, etc. while lowering their cost almost an order of magnitude from about $6 per Watt to under $1 per Watt. That’s from 2009. So, yes, it was known.
How is shutting down a company turning it around? How is taking that company's jobs overseas turning it around? How is depleting vested pension and benefits and leaving employees bereft turning it around? Any turn around was brief in order to sell the company at a profit.