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 Auburn, 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 Auburn 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.
This is simply a pet peeve of mine and I am wondering how the world feels about it. Here I am working my crappy job 40 hours a week and I need to be sent to some lab to have a drug test done (how degrading) just for the priveledge of getting my "fabulous" position. If I need to be subject to this, like most people, why is there no requirement on people who accept money paid for with the taxes of the people who have been tested..? I know a lot of people who are on assistance and use/abuse drugs and it just doesnt seem fair. I know the world isn't fair but still. Just think of how much the government would save by cutting back (even temporarily) on people who test positive.. Either that or maybe they would stop using so they could still get benefits and in the midterm better their own lives.. What do you think?
I agree "only a test". I understand its a womans right yada yada but at what point is it the taxpayers right? I think once you've had 2-3 kids (or like some people who have 5 all in foster care..) that a tubal ligation shouldnt be an option... or just limit the funds so you can keep having kids but you'll only get paid for the first 2 or something like it..
Nobody has pissed on my shoes. Its just something I've thought and figured this was a *mature* place to discuss it. Drug tests are cheaper than the hundreds or even into the thousands people get for food, housing etc. The constitution gives you the right to make yourself happy. It doesnt give you the right to leech. If you dont do drugs and wrong things and simply need the help then you'll be fine.
It would have to be carefully constructed to prevent fraud but even if you spend $20-100 on a drug test to deny a positive person could save $1000 a month.. or "worst case" scenario.. get them to put their priorites in order and get back on their feet again.. I am a minority being a half black female and shame on the people who would cry racism. If its a fact that a minority has the highest rate of accepting assistance they should be smart enough to know the minority would be most effected by suck a change. for example.. if they are 80% of the acceptees then dont be shocked when it affects 80% with the changes. You cant really defend your right to do drugs and get free $$... I think..
Jeff ur a funny dude. I have nothing against the concept system at all. I guess you live in Perfectville but in the 'hood you'd be surprised by the abuse of the system. Taxes on a $100,000 house are $5,000+ a year where I live. As I said, if you need it get it but don't be so shocked.. My job lost my contract I work for and I was fighting to not even need unemployment and was lucky enough to get another gig lined up. I know people dont choose to go on public assistance but i dont choose to claim 0 plus have extra money taken out of my checks for taxes and to STILL owe even with school loan interest reimbursement credits.. and I know I could always pick up and move across the country to some where cheaper but in the Real World I can't even afford a house with 5k in taxes due a year. As soon as you find where it says its a constitutional right to not pull your own weight, send it to me.
I love the idea. I also think they should limit how many Mamma's continue to produce babies while on my tax dollar. It won't be popular but it makes sense to me. If you want to have more children support them your damn self !
Hmmm, difficult to say. I like the general idea, but I'm concerned about implementation. Aside from the allegations that this would be targeted towards minorities, there are other obstacles that would have to be navigated. Somebody has to pay for the tests and I wouldn't want to add to an already bloated bureaucracy by having to institute a drug testing program/department. And you wouldn't want the recipients being able to bring in their own test results. That would create a whole new black market business of clean test results.
First of all, I don't think anyone should be drugtested. I don't think marijuana should be illegal. And no, I don't smoke it. So, I think it is wrong that you are being tested. I also don't think people on public assistance should be tested because I think that would violate their right to privacy. Also, if you are talking about welfare, they don't get that much. For example, a single parent with one child in the state of Arkansas gets less than $200 a month. He/she will get food stamps (about $300 for 2 people) but really that isn't much. That is about $1.50 per meal per person. Not that much. And by the time you paid for the test and you administered the test and you tabulated the results, the paperwork and the costs of the program would probably exceed the savings. Get a life. Just because you don't like something that is happening to you, does not mean it should happen to everybody else. In fact, if you don't like it, maybe it's wrong and you shouldn't want to impose on someone else what you don't want imposed upon you, right?
Hell yeah! They already kick felons out of public housing... Let's make them register on an international database so the world can see (so our neighbors are safe), give them huge Yellow Stars to wear, and keep their positive samples for future DNA analysis!!! While we are at it we should place their pictures on Pizza boxes, give them bright green license plates, and assign Social Services to them (to protect their children). You CHOSE your job... A whole lot of people don't CHOOSE welfare (believe it or not). I'm not on any welfare, but if I NEED to be your suggestion is a bunch of cr*p! I was laid-off 6 months ago, my unemployment ran out, and there is NO WORK here where I live (the local CareerLink even TOLD Auburn SO)!!! Luckily, I have money saved up to live off of for awhile, but with the recession and all, who knows??? It is MY fault there is NO WORK in my area??? Sure they can test me (I don't do drugs), but the fact is it is an invasion of privacy (which the government is not aloud to do - welfare is government), and it would be plain wrong. Why would you suggest we begin violating the Constitution simply because you have preconceived notions about welfare recipients?
Its a good idea but impossible to put into action. I bust my butt 50 hrs a week so i can drive by the stoneheads that dont work on my way home. if its an invasion of privacy to test these people isnt it also an invasion of their privacy to give them money!
Since people have a major problem with your suggestion, I would propose this: Only give assistance for a period of 6 months, Period. No exceptions. After 6 months they would need to be able to support themselves and their children. No more handouts.
Uh...how many of your tax dollars will pay for a program like this that won't work in the first place even assuming it stood up under the multitude of expensive court challenges? There would just be more fraud to cover the drug use; and it would be beyond expensive to set up.
Of course it would help. Remember the methadone places that are also available to these people that the government supplies.
I think it should be a prerequisite to getting any public assistance - but, unfortunately, the ACLU has different ideas, and they have a hell of a lot more clout than you or me.