If you need cash now, we offer fast payday loans up to $1000. The process takes less than 3 minutes.
Payday advance types of loans usually require the entire amount to be repaid on the next pay period. No credit or faxing needed for loans under $1000. Bad credit OK! Instant Decision; you can start today and have the cash you need quickly
We are an immediate loan specialist in Sylacauga, 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 Sylacauga 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.
1.What happens if the government passes a "price control" law that forces the price of a good below the market price? 2.What would be the result if the government raised the minimum wage to $1 million per hour? 3.Programs like Social Security and Medicare are transfers of wealth from current workers to retired former workers. Can a program of this sort be sustained and still provide a good deal for everybody in a society with replacement or sub-replacement fertility rates? Does the fact that retired people receive the same amount of benefits regardless of how many children they had encourage a reduction in the birth rate? 4.Did the Republican Party ever reduce the size of government or the amount of regulations at any time that it has been in power since WWII? If so, when? 5.Did Herbert Hoover increase or decrease taxes on the wealthy? Did Hoover increase or decrease the size of government? 6.What is the source of economic growth? Consumption or Savings/Investment? Why?
1. There would be excess demand and shortage of supply. This would lead to a black market 2. Rampant inflation and high unemployment (ie stagflation) 3. To sustain Medicare and Social Security each generation should be feeding in enough to pay for their own retirement. Other countries manage this - why do conservatives feel it is impossible in America? As for you last point of this question - most people do not consider children to be merely an asset they can cash in for their retirement. 4. This is a fairly difficult question to answer. Certainly the GOP have at times made moves to "reduce the size of government" and to deregulate (Gingrich's Contract with America is an example of the first, the Reagan agenda is an example of the second) 5. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1932. Hoover signed it into law. This raised taxes across the board. As for increasing the size of government - a recession inevitably leads to more government spending 6. Both are required. People will not invest in an overcapitalised market - so an increase in consumer demand is needed to drive futher investment. But an increase in private demand cannot lead to growth without an increase in capacity - which is driven by investment.
1. Businesses lose money and stop producing that good. 2. Zero jobs exist because every business closes down after about 10 hours. 3. Yes it can be sustained if the birth rate doesn't rise, and yes it encourages a reduction in the birth rate. 4. No, they have not. In fact, many have increased the size of government. 5. Hoover did both. Decreased them first, then increased them. Since most wealthy people were saving their money after the crash, they didn't create jobs with their lower tax rates. Once Hoover increased them, it was too little too late. Hoover did not change the size of the government. 6. Investment in capital is the source of economic growth, as the more you invest in production of newer technology and more raw materials, the more output, thus more jobs, and therefore larger economic growth.
1. depends on the level of true free market economics being practiced at that time. what is a far more likely scenario is the govt RAISING tariff rates so that the cost of chinese goods increases - which would be a good thing. 2. i'm not sure that i have ever heard this notion mentioned anywhere but hypothetical questions like this. what is implied of course is the 'slippery slope' arguement - meaning that if we start to regulate wages - they will rise and rise. what is forgotten is the slippery slope that we have supposedly left behind where four year old children were working 60+ work weeks and employers were free to mandate 7 day work weeks, give no benefits whatever and of course pay as little as possible. 3. how are social security and medicare 'entitlement' programs? we PAY for these for our entire working lives. maybe if the govt stopped taking OUR money out of social security (lock box, like al gore said - and you all laughed) it wouldn't be broke in the first place. 4. no never. 5. i think he lowered taxes on the wealthy. 6. ours is a wage driven economy.
1. We run out of that product (like gas in the 70s) 2. More poverty because business are forced to hire more accomplished people since they have to pay more, leaving inner-city Black ppl unemployed 3. I don't think so due to inflation rates 4. size of the gov't is not something easily measured and I doubt you know it either. Think of all the contractors under Homeland Security. I live in Sylacauga I can tell you it got huge under Bush. 5. ??? 6. Efficiency. I agree w/ a lot of Conservatives on tax and monetary issues like the 1st 2 questions, but Republicans themselves never actually do what they run on.