My fiance is a wedding photographer and hes really good. i'm trying to build our business up from the ground but were cash poor and it seems every place i turn i need money to make money. Iv come across several places that will sell you a package that tells you how to get a grant but if i had the money to buy that package i could use it for equipment! iv searched on the internet several times but it always seems everything just leads in circles and iv made no leeway. I live in brampton Ontario Canada and am a 19 year old female.... I would LOVE a grant but if my only option is a loan it will have to do. Only i have no credit and a low income so i cant get a loan .. do you have any resources for me that wont lead in circles!

My fiance is a wedding photographer and hes really good. i'm trying to build our business up from the ground but were cash poor and it seems every place i turn i need money to make money. Iv come across several places that will sell you a package that tells you how to get a grant but if i had the money to buy that package i could use it for equipment! iv searched on the internet several times but it always seems everything just leads in circles and iv made no leeway. I live in brampton Ontario Canada and am a 19 year old female.... I would LOVE a grant but if my only option is a loan it will have to do. Only i have no credit and a low income so i cant get a loan .. do you have any resources for me that wont lead in circles!

On searching many sites for precise answers, I'm looking for answer on which domestic bank is better in offering NRI services - core banking, loans, and online money transfers. To put into context, I currently use Citibank and HSBC. While I don't often use their services, whenever I've used their online and phone services, both banks have been satisfying. I'm now looking for a domestic bank for NRE accounts so that I can invest in domestic mutual funds and also go the PIS way. I do realize that public sector banks are cumbersome, require patience and still have room to improve on customer services and business processes. Will appreciate feedback from people who currently bank with SBI, PNB, Axis, HDFC etc and what do u find most satisfying with the your bank, so I can do further analysis

On searching many sites for precise answers, I'm looking for answer on which domestic bank is better in offering NRI services - core banking, loans, and online money transfers. To put into context, I currently use Citibank and HSBC. While I don't often use their services, whenever I've used their online and phone services, both banks have been satisfying. I'm now looking for a domestic bank for NRE accounts so that I can invest in domestic mutual funds and also go the PIS way. I do realize that public sector banks are cumbersome, require patience and still have room to improve on customer services and business processes. Will appreciate feedback from people who currently bank with SBI, PNB, Axis, HDFC etc and what do u find most satisfying with the your bank, so I can do further analysis

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a bill to increase small business lending Thursday, dealing a setback to President Barack Obama's jobs agenda. The bill would create a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase lending to small businesses, combining it with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses, helping to loosen tight credit markets. The fund would be available only to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. Senate leaders said they will continue to negotiate amendments to the bill. But Thursday's vote will make it difficult for Congress to pass it before lawmakers go on summer vacation. The Senate is in session for another week; the House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But if negotiations on the small business lending bill fail, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Congress has extended unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches and passed a measure that gives tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. But many other initiatives stalled, in part because of concerns they would add to the growing national debt. Obama lobbied for the small business lending bill during a trip Wednesday to Edison, N.J. But Senate Democrats fell short of the necessary 60 votes Thursday to end a Republican filibuster. The vote was 58 to 42, with all 41 Republicans voting to continue the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted to continue the filibuster, but only as a procedural step that allows him to call up the bill again. Much of the bill had bipartisan support, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Democrats were blocking GOP amendments. Reid said Republican demands kept changing. "It takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support," McConnell

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a bill to increase small business lending Thursday, dealing a setback to President Barack Obama's jobs agenda. The bill would create a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase lending to small businesses, combining it with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses, helping to loosen tight credit markets. The fund would be available only to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. Senate leaders said they will continue to negotiate amendments to the bill. But Thursday's vote will make it difficult for Congress to pass it before lawmakers go on summer vacation. The Senate is in session for another week; the House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But if negotiations on the small business lending bill fail, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Congress has extended unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches and passed a measure that gives tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. But many other initiatives stalled, in part because of concerns they would add to the growing national debt. Obama lobbied for the small business lending bill during a trip Wednesday to Edison, N.J. But Senate Democrats fell short of the necessary 60 votes Thursday to end a Republican filibuster. The vote was 58 to 42, with all 41 Republicans voting to continue the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted to continue the filibuster, but only as a procedural step that allows him to call up the bill again. Much of the bill had bipartisan support, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Democrats were blocking GOP amendments. Reid said Republican demands kept changing. "It takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support," McConnell

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_bi_ge/us_small_business_lending WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's election-year jobs agenda suffered a new setback Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill creating a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses. The fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. Democrats had wanted to pass the bill before Congress leaves town for summer vacation, enabling them to reassure anxious voters back home that they were addressing the sluggish economy. Senate leaders continued to negotiate changes to the bill Thursday, but time was short. The Senate is in session for another week; the House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But unless they reach a breakthrough on the small business lending bill, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Congress has extended unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches and passed a measure that gives tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. But many other initiatives stalled, in part because of concerns they would add to the growing national debt. Obama lobbied for the small business lending bill during a trip Wednesday to Edison, N.J. But Senate Democrats fell short of the necessary 60 votes Thursday to end a Republican filibuster. The vote was 58 to 42, with all 41 Republicans voting to continue the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted to continue the filibuster, but only as a procedural step that allows him to call up the bill again. Much of the bill had bipartisan support, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Democrats were blocking GOP amendments. Reid said Republican demands kept changing. "It takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support," McConnell said. "But our friends on the other side have managed to pull it off. They've outdone themselves." Reid said he offered to hold votes on some Republican amendments, only to see the list of GOP demands grow. "What we are simply trying to do is pass a bipartisan bill that will help small business owners create jobs," Reid said. "We went to great lengths to address what Republicans claimed were their concerns." GOP amendments included measures to beef up border security, impose a government spending cap and lower the estate tax, which is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million. One Republican amendment would repeal a new tax reporting requirement for businesses that was included in the massive health care overhaul enacted last spring. Democrats, meanwhile, have added about $1.5 billion in disaster relief for farmers who lost crops in 2009, a measure sponsored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Democrats also wanted to add an amendment to settle long-running class-action lawsuits brought by black farmers and American Indians. One lawsuit concerned the government's management and accounting of more than 300,000 trust accounts of American Indians. The other is a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the Agriculture Department. The cost of settling them both: about $4.6 billion. The small business tax cuts in the bill include breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. Other businesses could more quickly recover the costs of capital improvements through depreciation. Long-term investors in some small businesses would be exempt from paying capital gains taxes. Much of the bill would be paid for by allowing taxpayers to convert 401(k) and government retirement accounts into Roth accounts, in which they pay taxes up front on the money they contribute, enabling them to withdraw it tax-free after they retire. Taxpayers who convert accounts this year would pay the taxes in 2011 and 2012, generating an estimated $5.1 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_bi_ge/us_small_business_lending WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's election-year jobs agenda suffered a new setback Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill creating a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses. The fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. Democrats had wanted to pass the bill before Congress leaves town for summer vacation, enabling them to reassure anxious voters back home that they were addressing the sluggish economy. Senate leaders continued to negotiate changes to the bill Thursday, but time was short. The Senate is in session for another week; the House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But unless they reach a breakthrough on the small business lending bill, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Congress has extended unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches and passed a measure that gives tax breaks to businesses that hire unemployed workers. But many other initiatives stalled, in part because of concerns they would add to the growing national debt. Obama lobbied for the small business lending bill during a trip Wednesday to Edison, N.J. But Senate Democrats fell short of the necessary 60 votes Thursday to end a Republican filibuster. The vote was 58 to 42, with all 41 Republicans voting to continue the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted to continue the filibuster, but only as a procedural step that allows him to call up the bill again. Much of the bill had bipartisan support, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Democrats were blocking GOP amendments. Reid said Republican demands kept changing. "It takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support," McConnell said. "But our friends on the other side have managed to pull it off. They've outdone themselves." Reid said he offered to hold votes on some Republican amendments, only to see the list of GOP demands grow. "What we are simply trying to do is pass a bipartisan bill that will help small business owners create jobs," Reid said. "We went to great lengths to address what Republicans claimed were their concerns." GOP amendments included measures to beef up border security, impose a government spending cap and lower the estate tax, which is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million. One Republican amendment would repeal a new tax reporting requirement for businesses that was included in the massive health care overhaul enacted last spring. Democrats, meanwhile, have added about $1.5 billion in disaster relief for farmers who lost crops in 2009, a measure sponsored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Democrats also wanted to add an amendment to settle long-running class-action lawsuits brought by black farmers and American Indians. One lawsuit concerned the government's management and accounting of more than 300,000 trust accounts of American Indians. The other is a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the Agriculture Department. The cost of settling them both: about $4.6 billion. The small business tax cuts in the bill include breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. Other businesses could more quickly recover the costs of capital improvements through depreciation. Long-term investors in some small businesses would be exempt from paying capital gains taxes. Much of the bill would be paid for by allowing taxpayers to convert 401(k) and government retirement accounts into Roth accounts, in which they pay taxes up front on the money they contribute, enabling them to withdraw it tax-free after they retire. Taxpayers who convert accounts this year would pay the taxes in 2011 and 2012, generating an estimated $5.1 billion.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/dems_will_get_blamed_for_gop_o.html GOP blocks small business bill. Who will get the blame? As I've argued a bunch of times before, no matter how many times Dems scream about GOP obstructionism, the jury is out on whether Republicans will take any of the blame for its consequences. Dems run the place, and the public may tune out any argument over Senate procedure as so much Beltway white noise. The latest: In the Senate today, Republicans blocked a bill to create a $30 billion fund to enable community banks to boost lending to small businesses. Republicans decried the move as another bailout, and it's now unlikely that it will pass before Congress goes home for vacation in August, with little in the way of jobs bills under its belt. So how will this story play? This paragraph in the Associated Press write-up says it all: Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But if negotiations on the small business lending bill fail, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. And there you have it. Is this how the story will be understood by the American people? Very possible. Republicans claimed Dems blocked votes on the amendments they wanted. Dems countered that they agreed to votes on the GOP amendments, only to have the GOP demand more votes. Get what's happening here? The larger story is all getting subsumed in a bunch of Beltway white noise. So here's the question: What storyline will the American people take away from all this? At the press briefing today, Robert Gibbs tried to tell the story the administration's way. Speaking about the small business bill, he said: "Why on earth would that fall prey to the same old tired partisan politics, unless one side was much more concerned about playing politics than it is about helping this economy along? That is the fight that this president has had to wage in many cases since the very begining of his administration. He will continue to make the tough decisions. And those that are more interested in playing politics rather than helping small business get the help they need, I assume they'll hear from their constituents about how unproductive that really is." Whatever their substantive objections to this bill, it appears Republicans have calculated that the failure of Dem legislation, and Dem griping about the GOP's role in blocking it, will only feed a sense that government is broken and has failed to deliver, which will reflect badly on the ruling party. Indeed, if that AP paragraph captures the way the storyline is understood by the American people, Dems are in serious trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_bi_ge/us_small_business_lending

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/dems_will_get_blamed_for_gop_o.html GOP blocks small business bill. Who will get the blame? As I've argued a bunch of times before, no matter how many times Dems scream about GOP obstructionism, the jury is out on whether Republicans will take any of the blame for its consequences. Dems run the place, and the public may tune out any argument over Senate procedure as so much Beltway white noise. The latest: In the Senate today, Republicans blocked a bill to create a $30 billion fund to enable community banks to boost lending to small businesses. Republicans decried the move as another bailout, and it's now unlikely that it will pass before Congress goes home for vacation in August, with little in the way of jobs bills under its belt. So how will this story play? This paragraph in the Associated Press write-up says it all: Congressional Democrats started the year with ambitious plans to pass a series of bills designed to create jobs. But if negotiations on the small business lending bill fail, they will have little to show for it just a few months before midterm elections that will determine whether Democrats keep their majorities in the House and Senate. And there you have it. Is this how the story will be understood by the American people? Very possible. Republicans claimed Dems blocked votes on the amendments they wanted. Dems countered that they agreed to votes on the GOP amendments, only to have the GOP demand more votes. Get what's happening here? The larger story is all getting subsumed in a bunch of Beltway white noise. So here's the question: What storyline will the American people take away from all this? At the press briefing today, Robert Gibbs tried to tell the story the administration's way. Speaking about the small business bill, he said: "Why on earth would that fall prey to the same old tired partisan politics, unless one side was much more concerned about playing politics than it is about helping this economy along? That is the fight that this president has had to wage in many cases since the very begining of his administration. He will continue to make the tough decisions. And those that are more interested in playing politics rather than helping small business get the help they need, I assume they'll hear from their constituents about how unproductive that really is." Whatever their substantive objections to this bill, it appears Republicans have calculated that the failure of Dem legislation, and Dem griping about the GOP's role in blocking it, will only feed a sense that government is broken and has failed to deliver, which will reflect badly on the ruling party. Indeed, if that AP paragraph captures the way the storyline is understood by the American people, Dems are in serious trouble. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_bi_ge/us_small_business_lending

Why do they only care about their power, and not about the people they are suposed to serve? "Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments before November’s midterm elections." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/politics/30cong.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&hpw=&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1280437479-6hI0JTo/vVTbeHU1nMx7bg

Why do they only care about their power, and not about the people they are suposed to serve? "Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments before November’s midterm elections." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/politics/30cong.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&hpw=&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1280437479-6hI0JTo/vVTbeHU1nMx7bg

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40411.html Efforts to provide relief to the nation's struggling small businesses stalled in the Senate Thursday, prompting a bitter round of finger-pointing on a measure that once had broad bipartisan support. The bill, which would create a $30 billion Treasury-backed loan facility and provide tax cuts for small businesses worth $12 billion over 10 years, failed to break a GOP-led filibuster on a 58-42 vote. For weeks, Republicans have pressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to open the door for a series of amendments. But Democrats have balked, saying the amendments in question are not germane to the issue on the floor. With a week until the August recess, Democrats are eager to clear the bill and tout an accomplishment before moving onto a packed floor schedule in the coming days. But the impasse ensures that the two sides will continue haggling over whether to move forward with the bill or drop it altogether before moving onto other business, including an energy bill and Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination. "My frustration is pretty high," Reid said on the floor. His comments came after Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who for weeks has been pushing the measure, lambasted Democrats for not giving the GOP a chance to amend it. "We could have addressed this issue long before now, give it the attention it deserves rather than treating it as a mere afterthought in the legislative process that we've got to ram in there and deny the minority the opportunity to offer a few amendments," the usually staid Maine moderate thundered on the floor. Moments before the vote was about to be called, Reid tried to cut a deal: Allow the GOP to offer three amendments and kill disaster and agriculture relief funding. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said three GOP amendments would not be enough, though he sounded optimistic that a deal could be reached later. "I think we're getting closer," McConnell said. "I think there's a chance we may be able to make some significant progress very soon. In the meantime ... the leader and I can continue to try to unsnarl this." But Reid shot back: "There's nothing to unsnarl." Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), an architect of the bill, pressed McConnell on the precise number of amendments his side would be satisfied with. But McConnell punted. "That is the sort of thing that the majority leader and I work on every day, ... and we ought to do that." Pressed further, McConnell called for regular order, prompting the cloture vote to begin and effectively cutting off the Louisiana Democrat. At the center of the deal making is Sen. George LeMieux, the Republican from Florida, whose economically distressed home state includes a host of banks and small businesses pushing for the bill. While he supports the measure, LeMieux said that he's trying to help both sides reach an accommodation. "It sure would be a shame if it didn't get done," LeMieux said after the vote. LeMieux also disputed Reid’s suggestions on the floor that he would vote for cloture if the disaster money were removed and said it’s largely up to the majority leader to get the bill passed. “The keys to the kingdom are in Harry Reid’s pocket.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40411.html#ixzz0vB8SL8g6

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40411.html Efforts to provide relief to the nation's struggling small businesses stalled in the Senate Thursday, prompting a bitter round of finger-pointing on a measure that once had broad bipartisan support. The bill, which would create a $30 billion Treasury-backed loan facility and provide tax cuts for small businesses worth $12 billion over 10 years, failed to break a GOP-led filibuster on a 58-42 vote. For weeks, Republicans have pressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to open the door for a series of amendments. But Democrats have balked, saying the amendments in question are not germane to the issue on the floor. With a week until the August recess, Democrats are eager to clear the bill and tout an accomplishment before moving onto a packed floor schedule in the coming days. But the impasse ensures that the two sides will continue haggling over whether to move forward with the bill or drop it altogether before moving onto other business, including an energy bill and Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination. "My frustration is pretty high," Reid said on the floor. His comments came after Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who for weeks has been pushing the measure, lambasted Democrats for not giving the GOP a chance to amend it. "We could have addressed this issue long before now, give it the attention it deserves rather than treating it as a mere afterthought in the legislative process that we've got to ram in there and deny the minority the opportunity to offer a few amendments," the usually staid Maine moderate thundered on the floor. Moments before the vote was about to be called, Reid tried to cut a deal: Allow the GOP to offer three amendments and kill disaster and agriculture relief funding. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said three GOP amendments would not be enough, though he sounded optimistic that a deal could be reached later. "I think we're getting closer," McConnell said. "I think there's a chance we may be able to make some significant progress very soon. In the meantime ... the leader and I can continue to try to unsnarl this." But Reid shot back: "There's nothing to unsnarl." Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), an architect of the bill, pressed McConnell on the precise number of amendments his side would be satisfied with. But McConnell punted. "That is the sort of thing that the majority leader and I work on every day, ... and we ought to do that." Pressed further, McConnell called for regular order, prompting the cloture vote to begin and effectively cutting off the Louisiana Democrat. At the center of the deal making is Sen. George LeMieux, the Republican from Florida, whose economically distressed home state includes a host of banks and small businesses pushing for the bill. While he supports the measure, LeMieux said that he's trying to help both sides reach an accommodation. "It sure would be a shame if it didn't get done," LeMieux said after the vote. LeMieux also disputed Reid’s suggestions on the floor that he would vote for cloture if the disaster money were removed and said it’s largely up to the majority leader to get the bill passed. “The keys to the kingdom are in Harry Reid’s pocket.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40411.html#ixzz0vB8SL8g6

As a rule, we can consider that when the wealth of the rich, or of any of us, goes to pay taxes to the government, it is consumed. When wealth stays with its rightful owners, that portion not consumed is mostly used by businesses as monetary capital, which is transformed into capital goods. This is especially true for the rich, who save an overwhelming majority of their wealth. Money in banks, savings institutions, and investment firms is loaned out or invested in places where it is ultimately used for the production of consumer goods (including services). Again, the more consumer goods we create, the more our real wages rise relative to the costs of things we buy—things become cheaper in real terms. We can generally think, somewhat abstractly, of things in the following fashion: Every $1 not paid in taxes becomes $1.20 if left in the hands of its owners. If that same $1 goes to the government through taxes and is consumed, it becomes $0. The additional 20 cents created by capitalists can be thought of as a new tool with which to produce, and therefore a new consumer good or service, while the $0 can be thought of as a tool or good never having been created to begin with. Wealth kept by its owners, when saved, creates new jobs and products for us. Wealth taken and given to someone else is spent and disappears forever. It cannot be emphasized enough that the spending for capital goods and labor is paid for by savings, not by consumer spending! For when we go to purchase a car, home, or television set, these things have already been made before we arrive at the store. The necessary spending for production takes place long before we consumers show up, and is funded by savings/monetary capital. Without capital, there would be no money or tools with which to make things—we would all have to produce individually by hand. This would include even our cars and homes, as it is savings that pays for both the home and cars to be built in the first place and to finance them once they are built (since most of us could not afford to pay cash up front). Does that make any sense to the liberals who support TAX THE WEALTHY! ... ??? @Caribou: Bush's economy was based on deficit-spending. It's disingenuous to say 'well, he implemented tax cuts and the economy sucks, so they don't work'. B/C what you are leaving out is the rampant increase in spending, the devaluation of the dollar, t he burst of the housing bubble, the allowance of back door deals by the Fed....ALL of which (in their own right) dwarf any help the tax cuts would have provided. @whiteflame: "Many corporations send their money to offshore tax havens where it doesn't accrue any money for the U.S. whatsoever" ...that's to avoid the higher taxes imposed by our govt. "For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, there's a $1.61 return in economic stimulus" ...so the extension of unemployment benefits alone should have stimulated the economy. I'm interested in where you gathered this information. How can $1 in unemployment benefits turn into $1.61? You claim the 20% increase in capital based on savings was an extraordinary amount. "...So what makes them so special?" They don't deserve special treatment because they are rich. The same should go for the poor. When you tax the rich, what part of their expenditures will they cut first? The parts that don't earn them returns, i.e. charitable donations. One other thing.... The less savings and capital businesses receive with which to operate, the less wealth the businesses can create for us. This equates to fewer jobs and fewer goods being produced. If the lower income groups did not receive money from the rich, they would instead receive ongoing salaries and a constant increase in goods available to them at constantly lower prices. Only capital creates jobs and pays wages....not fiat currency which comes from the printing press or subsidies i.e. unemployment, OWS, SSI.

As a rule, we can consider that when the wealth of the rich, or of any of us, goes to pay taxes to the government, it is consumed. When wealth stays with its rightful owners, that portion not consumed is mostly used by businesses as monetary capital, which is transformed into capital goods. This is especially true for the rich, who save an overwhelming majority of their wealth. Money in banks, savings institutions, and investment firms is loaned out or invested in places where it is ultimately used for the production of consumer goods (including services). Again, the more consumer goods we create, the more our real wages rise relative to the costs of things we buy—things become cheaper in real terms. We can generally think, somewhat abstractly, of things in the following fashion: Every $1 not paid in taxes becomes $1.20 if left in the hands of its owners. If that same $1 goes to the government through taxes and is consumed, it becomes $0. The additional 20 cents created by capitalists can be thought of as a new tool with which to produce, and therefore a new consumer good or service, while the $0 can be thought of as a tool or good never having been created to begin with. Wealth kept by its owners, when saved, creates new jobs and products for us. Wealth taken and given to someone else is spent and disappears forever. It cannot be emphasized enough that the spending for capital goods and labor is paid for by savings, not by consumer spending! For when we go to purchase a car, home, or television set, these things have already been made before we arrive at the store. The necessary spending for production takes place long before we consumers show up, and is funded by savings/monetary capital. Without capital, there would be no money or tools with which to make things—we would all have to produce individually by hand. This would include even our cars and homes, as it is savings that pays for both the home and cars to be built in the first place and to finance them once they are built (since most of us could not afford to pay cash up front). Does that make any sense to the liberals who support TAX THE WEALTHY! ... ??? @Caribou: Bush's economy was based on deficit-spending. It's disingenuous to say 'well, he implemented tax cuts and the economy sucks, so they don't work'. B/C what you are leaving out is the rampant increase in spending, the devaluation of the dollar, t he burst of the housing bubble, the allowance of back door deals by the Fed....ALL of which (in their own right) dwarf any help the tax cuts would have provided. @whiteflame: "Many corporations send their money to offshore tax havens where it doesn't accrue any money for the U.S. whatsoever" ...that's to avoid the higher taxes imposed by our govt. "For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, there's a $1.61 return in economic stimulus" ...so the extension of unemployment benefits alone should have stimulated the economy. I'm interested in where you gathered this information. How can $1 in unemployment benefits turn into $1.61? You claim the 20% increase in capital based on savings was an extraordinary amount. "...So what makes them so special?" They don't deserve special treatment because they are rich. The same should go for the poor. When you tax the rich, what part of their expenditures will they cut first? The parts that don't earn them returns, i.e. charitable donations. One other thing.... The less savings and capital businesses receive with which to operate, the less wealth the businesses can create for us. This equates to fewer jobs and fewer goods being produced. If the lower income groups did not receive money from the rich, they would instead receive ongoing salaries and a constant increase in goods available to them at constantly lower prices. Only capital creates jobs and pays wages....not fiat currency which comes from the printing press or subsidies i.e. unemployment, OWS, SSI.

Henry owned three freehold properties: his business premises, a vacant house which he was preparing to let to tenants, and his residence. He needed to obtain capital for an ambitious business development. He mortgaged the business premises to Grabbing Bank, the vacant house to Barcloyds Bank and his residence to Quick Bank. All the mortgages were secured by registered charges. He fell into arrears on the mortgages of both houses. Representatives of Barcloyds entered into possession of the vacant house and almost immediately sold the property for far less than Henry believed it was worth. Quick Bank is threatening to bring possession proceedings in relation to the residence. Grabbing Bank has commenced possession proceedings in relation to the business premises, although there are no arrears in relation to that loan. Advise Henry, who believes the action of Barcloyds Bank was unlawful and a confiscation of his property contrary to his Human Rights. He also needs to know if has any defences to the other proceedings.

Henry owned three freehold properties: his business premises, a vacant house which he was preparing to let to tenants, and his residence. He needed to obtain capital for an ambitious business development. He mortgaged the business premises to Grabbing Bank, the vacant house to Barcloyds Bank and his residence to Quick Bank. All the mortgages were secured by registered charges. He fell into arrears on the mortgages of both houses. Representatives of Barcloyds entered into possession of the vacant house and almost immediately sold the property for far less than Henry believed it was worth. Quick Bank is threatening to bring possession proceedings in relation to the residence. Grabbing Bank has commenced possession proceedings in relation to the business premises, although there are no arrears in relation to that loan. Advise Henry, who believes the action of Barcloyds Bank was unlawful and a confiscation of his property contrary to his Human Rights. He also needs to know if has any defences to the other proceedings.

Who Could Forget That? Recapturing Some of 2009’s Greatest Events Way back in 2008, did you ever imagine that the year to come would hold events like a worldwide outbreak of disease? How about the inauguration of Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American President, or an organized terrorist attack on Christmas day? The year’s events were unforgettable. First, let’s take a look at a great leader who took a major government position around this time last year. The inauguration of Barack Obama as president marked a milestone in U.S. history. On January 20th, the country’s first African-American President was sworn into office. Citizens from across the country gathered at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to witness a historic event that had a record attendance for any event in D.C. It ended up as one of the most observed events in the world. After he officially became president, a huge task lay ahead of him; he needed to mend the broken economy. He has slowly, but surely, succeeded with that, as the economy began to turn around in the fourth quarter of ‘09. As the housing market stabilized, many areas started to recover. As of June, home re-sales shot up a good nine percent and sales of new homes jumped seventeen percent. Construction also raised a hefty twenty percent. The Midwest has shown the greatest improvement; places such as Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas never dug themselves too far into the rut in the first place. The “Big Three” automakers, major contributors to Detroit’s epic failure in terms of the economy, have realized their faults and have started to design and even build better cars. They really have to because they need sales if they ever want to repay the billions (yes, billions) of dollars of federal loans they received from “generous” taxpayers through the stimulus package. Just as decisions needed to be made about the failing economy and businesses, choices needed to come from Congress, too. A huge controversy in the latter part of 2009, the health care reform bill received approval in the Senate when Nebraska’s democratic senator, Ben Nelson, provided the 60th vote needed to pass the bill. According to a poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald, Nelson’s approval ratings have recently dipped below fifty percent, all because of his decisions about health care. The House of Representatives has passed a similar bill, and the two versions have yet to merge into one final version. In a completely different branch of government, Sonia Sotomayor became the Supreme Court’s first-ever Hispanic justice. She also became the 111th justice and the third female associate justice. Another person who made it to the front page, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab expected to die as he sped through the air on a Northwest Airlines flight headed for Detroit on Christmas day. He has no fear of flying, but he knows he will set off a bomb (or at least try to) sometime before landing. Abdulmutallab hid a bomb inside his underpants and tried to use it to blow up the plane carrying 298 people. Fortunately, the substance provided by Al Qaeda failed to ignite properly; passengers subdued the Nigerian man by jumping on him. He remains in custody at a federal prison in Milan, Michigan, under charges of the attempted murder of 298 people. While 298 people almost died last year, one very famous man did perish. Michael Jackson, the “King of Pop”, died last year at the age of fifty. The man who influenced music so much now rests in peace. At first, people thought he died naturally. However, multiple autopsies revealed that Jackson died from high drug usage, mainly propofol and lorazepam. His doctor, who remains under investigation for purposely trying to kill him, administered the drugs as pain killers. Of course, this happened in a year when many people probably purchased a lot of pain/fever reducers to help themselves overcome their symptoms while battling the 2009 H1N1 swine flu virus. The bug, which originated in Veracruz, Mexico, contains genes from pig, bird, and human flu viruses. The outbreak began in April and gained recognition as a global pandemic when, in June, the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control stopped counting cases. Fortunately, we have come a long way since then, and immunization shots have been given to many. Readily available to the general public, shots put you in a much smaller risk of catching the disease that once intimidated many. The year’s fastest-growing Internet fad may have intimidated owners of social networking sites more than H1N1 because the “new kid in town” could steal their users. Twitter, as of February 2009, had about four million users. Total numbers currently reach all the way into the tens of millions. People use Twitter to have conversations with others by “tweeting.” People all over the country may have “tweeted” to friends or family members about how a major snowstorm hampered their travel plans for Christmas. The Midwest received two major snowstorms in December, dumping an average of twenty-four inches of snow in Omaha, one of the hardest hit cities. The first storm had Midwesterners complaining about the five-foot-plus snowdrifts everywhere they looked. Kids, however, rejoiced as most received not one, not two, but three snow days out of the ordeal. Another storm hit two days before Christmas and lingered through Saturday, sending unappreciated gifts of snow and ice to people who had travel plans for Christmas. The most recent storm dumped a measly 4.5 inches, but high winds the next day created huge snow huge road-blocking snowdrifts for the third time. Road crews, which had not stopped working twelve-hour shifts non-stop since Christmas, literally had to start all over as Mother Nature decided to ruin their hard work. Hard work never played a role in a gift from President Obama to his daughters. The two girls got a dog this year because Obama thought they had earned” it, even though they did absolutely nothing. The Portuguese water dog named Bo was a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy. President Obama succeeded in keeping the dog a secret until he unveiled it. The surprised kids had always wanted a dog. Just as the Obamas found about owning a dog, the 2009 calendar year definitely had its up’s and down’s. I, personally, cannot remember any year that had as much significance to me as 2009. A lot more than ten major events happened in 2009. Only novels and sequels could hold all that 2009 had to offer. As we enter a new decade, we need to remember all that happened before so we can know what to avoid and what to do again. Last year will forever set an example for us in years to come. You can’t argue with that, now, can you? Sorry it's so long . I had to extend it in the details because it didn't all fit. What grade level does it sound like? I wrote this like two or three months after Christmas.

Who Could Forget That? Recapturing Some of 2009’s Greatest Events Way back in 2008, did you ever imagine that the year to come would hold events like a worldwide outbreak of disease? How about the inauguration of Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American President, or an organized terrorist attack on Christmas day? The year’s events were unforgettable. First, let’s take a look at a great leader who took a major government position around this time last year. The inauguration of Barack Obama as president marked a milestone in U.S. history. On January 20th, the country’s first African-American President was sworn into office. Citizens from across the country gathered at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to witness a historic event that had a record attendance for any event in D.C. It ended up as one of the most observed events in the world. After he officially became president, a huge task lay ahead of him; he needed to mend the broken economy. He has slowly, but surely, succeeded with that, as the economy began to turn around in the fourth quarter of ‘09. As the housing market stabilized, many areas started to recover. As of June, home re-sales shot up a good nine percent and sales of new homes jumped seventeen percent. Construction also raised a hefty twenty percent. The Midwest has shown the greatest improvement; places such as Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas never dug themselves too far into the rut in the first place. The “Big Three” automakers, major contributors to Detroit’s epic failure in terms of the economy, have realized their faults and have started to design and even build better cars. They really have to because they need sales if they ever want to repay the billions (yes, billions) of dollars of federal loans they received from “generous” taxpayers through the stimulus package. Just as decisions needed to be made about the failing economy and businesses, choices needed to come from Congress, too. A huge controversy in the latter part of 2009, the health care reform bill received approval in the Senate when Nebraska’s democratic senator, Ben Nelson, provided the 60th vote needed to pass the bill. According to a poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald, Nelson’s approval ratings have recently dipped below fifty percent, all because of his decisions about health care. The House of Representatives has passed a similar bill, and the two versions have yet to merge into one final version. In a completely different branch of government, Sonia Sotomayor became the Supreme Court’s first-ever Hispanic justice. She also became the 111th justice and the third female associate justice. Another person who made it to the front page, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab expected to die as he sped through the air on a Northwest Airlines flight headed for Detroit on Christmas day. He has no fear of flying, but he knows he will set off a bomb (or at least try to) sometime before landing. Abdulmutallab hid a bomb inside his underpants and tried to use it to blow up the plane carrying 298 people. Fortunately, the substance provided by Al Qaeda failed to ignite properly; passengers subdued the Nigerian man by jumping on him. He remains in custody at a federal prison in Milan, Michigan, under charges of the attempted murder of 298 people. While 298 people almost died last year, one very famous man did perish. Michael Jackson, the “King of Pop”, died last year at the age of fifty. The man who influenced music so much now rests in peace. At first, people thought he died naturally. However, multiple autopsies revealed that Jackson died from high drug usage, mainly propofol and lorazepam. His doctor, who remains under investigation for purposely trying to kill him, administered the drugs as pain killers. Of course, this happened in a year when many people probably purchased a lot of pain/fever reducers to help themselves overcome their symptoms while battling the 2009 H1N1 swine flu virus. The bug, which originated in Veracruz, Mexico, contains genes from pig, bird, and human flu viruses. The outbreak began in April and gained recognition as a global pandemic when, in June, the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control stopped counting cases. Fortunately, we have come a long way since then, and immunization shots have been given to many. Readily available to the general public, shots put you in a much smaller risk of catching the disease that once intimidated many. The year’s fastest-growing Internet fad may have intimidated owners of social networking sites more than H1N1 because the “new kid in town” could steal their users. Twitter, as of February 2009, had about four million users. Total numbers currently reach all the way into the tens of millions. People use Twitter to have conversations with others by “tweeting.” People all over the country may have “tweeted” to friends or family members about how a major snowstorm hampered their travel plans for Christmas. The Midwest received two major snowstorms in December, dumping an average of twenty-four inches of snow in Omaha, one of the hardest hit cities. The first storm had Midwesterners complaining about the five-foot-plus snowdrifts everywhere they looked. Kids, however, rejoiced as most received not one, not two, but three snow days out of the ordeal. Another storm hit two days before Christmas and lingered through Saturday, sending unappreciated gifts of snow and ice to people who had travel plans for Christmas. The most recent storm dumped a measly 4.5 inches, but high winds the next day created huge snow huge road-blocking snowdrifts for the third time. Road crews, which had not stopped working twelve-hour shifts non-stop since Christmas, literally had to start all over as Mother Nature decided to ruin their hard work. Hard work never played a role in a gift from President Obama to his daughters. The two girls got a dog this year because Obama thought they had earned” it, even though they did absolutely nothing. The Portuguese water dog named Bo was a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy. President Obama succeeded in keeping the dog a secret until he unveiled it. The surprised kids had always wanted a dog. Just as the Obamas found about owning a dog, the 2009 calendar year definitely had its up’s and down’s. I, personally, cannot remember any year that had as much significance to me as 2009. A lot more than ten major events happened in 2009. Only novels and sequels could hold all that 2009 had to offer. As we enter a new decade, we need to remember all that happened before so we can know what to avoid and what to do again. Last year will forever set an example for us in years to come. You can’t argue with that, now, can you? Sorry it's so long . I had to extend it in the details because it didn't all fit. What grade level does it sound like? I wrote this like two or three months after Christmas.

You are the manager of a large data processing project. Your company, Systems Inc., worked very hard to obtain a contract with Big Bank to do their conversions from their recent acquisition, Small Bank.. The bank met with several companies to discuss who would do the best work on the contract. During your meeting with Big Bank, you told them that you had “never missed a conversion deadline.” At the time, your company had never missed a conversion deadline, but the company had only done three conversions. You also told them that your data processing systems were the fastest around.” After months of negotiation, Big Bank signed the contract. The President of Big Bank said, “We like fast, and you guys are fast. We choose you." You started work on the data conversion immediately (ahead of contract). According to the contract, your team was responsible for ensuring that the new bank's data was converted to Big Bank's data processing system. The contract involved six large conversions. The first involved converting Big Bank's savings accounts, the second its checking accounts, the third its investment portfolio, the forth its credit card, the fifth its mortgage portfolios and the six its large business loans. Your team completed four of the six conversions without a problem. The fifth task, the largest and most important, has encountered numerous problems. Some problems have been based on personnel issues on your part and other issues have been based on the bank's failure to provide you with necessary information. One issue resulted when the conversion was delayed for over one week. The data to be converted was formatted differently than the bank's previously specifications provided. For that reason, the data conversion fields needed to be changed. A provision in the contract required your company to receive four people's approval before making any changes to the conversion data fields, and one of those four people, Glenda Givealot, was out of the country doing missionary work in an area of the world that did not have cell phone reception. Another issue resulted when the conversion was supposed to occur. Because of the change in the timeline, the conversion schedule had to change. The weekend the conversion was rescheduled to occur, an ice storm struck the state where your data processing computers were housed. Your facility lost electricity for three days and the conversion was delayed again until power could be restored. 1. Can Big Bank's President rescind the contract? Under what circumstances can a contract be rescinded by either party? What facts have to be alleged and proven? What is the result of a contract that is rescinded? 2. Big Bank's President also threatens legal action. What potential causes of action could you foresee him bringing in court? Would he be successful? Why or why not? What arguments could Systems Inc. raises in its defense? What are Big Bank's potential damages? 3. Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract? 4. In this situation amicable resolution of problems is greatly preferred by your company. Would this be true in all contract disputes? In what situations and why would you decide to move to litigation over amicable resolution? 5. There are 3 types of contract performance: complete, substantial and material breach. Describe the differences (and similarities) among the three, and explain some of the legal ramifications for one or more of these types of performances. (For example, what happens if one party performs completely but the other party performs only substantially?) Give examples from outside readings or experiences in your career or personal business life. 6. What are the two most important concepts from this exercise that will help you in future contract negotiations?

You are the manager of a large data processing project. Your company, Systems Inc., worked very hard to obtain a contract with Big Bank to do their conversions from their recent acquisition, Small Bank.. The bank met with several companies to discuss who would do the best work on the contract. During your meeting with Big Bank, you told them that you had “never missed a conversion deadline.” At the time, your company had never missed a conversion deadline, but the company had only done three conversions. You also told them that your data processing systems were the fastest around.” After months of negotiation, Big Bank signed the contract. The President of Big Bank said, “We like fast, and you guys are fast. We choose you." You started work on the data conversion immediately (ahead of contract). According to the contract, your team was responsible for ensuring that the new bank's data was converted to Big Bank's data processing system. The contract involved six large conversions. The first involved converting Big Bank's savings accounts, the second its checking accounts, the third its investment portfolio, the forth its credit card, the fifth its mortgage portfolios and the six its large business loans. Your team completed four of the six conversions without a problem. The fifth task, the largest and most important, has encountered numerous problems. Some problems have been based on personnel issues on your part and other issues have been based on the bank's failure to provide you with necessary information. One issue resulted when the conversion was delayed for over one week. The data to be converted was formatted differently than the bank's previously specifications provided. For that reason, the data conversion fields needed to be changed. A provision in the contract required your company to receive four people's approval before making any changes to the conversion data fields, and one of those four people, Glenda Givealot, was out of the country doing missionary work in an area of the world that did not have cell phone reception. Another issue resulted when the conversion was supposed to occur. Because of the change in the timeline, the conversion schedule had to change. The weekend the conversion was rescheduled to occur, an ice storm struck the state where your data processing computers were housed. Your facility lost electricity for three days and the conversion was delayed again until power could be restored. 1. Can Big Bank's President rescind the contract? Under what circumstances can a contract be rescinded by either party? What facts have to be alleged and proven? What is the result of a contract that is rescinded? 2. Big Bank's President also threatens legal action. What potential causes of action could you foresee him bringing in court? Would he be successful? Why or why not? What arguments could Systems Inc. raises in its defense? What are Big Bank's potential damages? 3. Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract? 4. In this situation amicable resolution of problems is greatly preferred by your company. Would this be true in all contract disputes? In what situations and why would you decide to move to litigation over amicable resolution? 5. There are 3 types of contract performance: complete, substantial and material breach. Describe the differences (and similarities) among the three, and explain some of the legal ramifications for one or more of these types of performances. (For example, what happens if one party performs completely but the other party performs only substantially?) Give examples from outside readings or experiences in your career or personal business life. 6. What are the two most important concepts from this exercise that will help you in future contract negotiations?

OBAMA truth REVEALED - Received by mail Posted on July 28th, 2010 by David-Crockett This is an interesting story, put together from various articles and TV shows, by the British Times paper.OBAMA truth REVEALED It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below), but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank’s employees had donated money to Obama’s Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under. ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests. Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean’s family, which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals. But after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists. This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded. Under Obama’s new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce, (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and “reduce” their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street. Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms, that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange. So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts… One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors. Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years. Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter. The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team. (To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist). When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist. Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company, co-owned by Tony Rezko. (You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. OBAMA truth REVEALEDYears OBAMA truth REVEALEDYears prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama). Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization. Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist. Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends.) Interesting? And now the closing… Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law. Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket. But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL). If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year. But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its ccounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat. It is estimated Al Gore will probably rake in 15 billion dollars, just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life. Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.

OBAMA truth REVEALED - Received by mail Posted on July 28th, 2010 by David-Crockett This is an interesting story, put together from various articles and TV shows, by the British Times paper.OBAMA truth REVEALED It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below), but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank’s employees had donated money to Obama’s Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under. ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests. Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean’s family, which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals. But after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists. This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded. Under Obama’s new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce, (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and “reduce” their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street. Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms, that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange. So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts… One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors. Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years. Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter. The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team. (To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist). When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist. Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company, co-owned by Tony Rezko. (You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. OBAMA truth REVEALEDYears OBAMA truth REVEALEDYears prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama). Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization. Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist. Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends.) Interesting? And now the closing… Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law. Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket. But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL). If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year. But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its ccounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat. It is estimated Al Gore will probably rake in 15 billion dollars, just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life. Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.

The banks (who were bailed out by Bush) refuse to loan money to small business despite their billions in reserve. Obama wants to secure loans so the banks will loan the money. This is one of his solutions to get the economy going again. The Republicans refuse to go along. Why would they be against helping small businesses and helping the economy and creating jobs?

The banks (who were bailed out by Bush) refuse to loan money to small business despite their billions in reserve. Obama wants to secure loans so the banks will loan the money. This is one of his solutions to get the economy going again. The Republicans refuse to go along. Why would they be against helping small businesses and helping the economy and creating jobs?

The following payments and receipts are related to land, land improvements, and building acquired for use in a wholesale apparel business. The receipts are identified by an asterisk. A) Finder’s fee paid to real estate agency……..$7,500 B) Cost of real estate acquired as a plant site: Land…….$210,000 Building….50,000 C) Fee paid to attorney for title search……..$2,500 D) Delinquent real estate taxes on property, assumed by purchaser……..$20,650 E) Cost of razing and removing building………….16,250 F) Cost of filling and grading land………12,500 G) Proceeds from sale of salvage materials from old building………$5,000* H) Architect’s and engineer’s fees for plans and supervision……….36,000 I) Special assessment paid to city for extension of water main to the property…8,000 J) Premium on one-year insurance policy during construction…….3,600 K) Money borrowed to pay building contractor……..900,000 L) Cost of trees and shrubbery planted……..18,000 M) Cost of repairing windstorm damage during construction…3,000 N) Cost of repairing vandalism damage during construction….4,200 O) Cost of paving parking lot to be used by customers……………15,000 P) Proceeds from insurances company for windstorm and vandalism damage…7,000* Q) Interest incurred on building loan during construction………….54,000 R) Payment to building contractor for new building……………..1,000,000 S) Refund of premium on insurance policy (i) canceled after 11 months…..600* Instructions 1) Assign each payment and receipt to Land (unlimited life), Land Improvements, (limited life), Building, or Other Accounts. Indicate receipts by an asterisk. Identify each item by letter and list the amounts in columnar form, as follows: Item Land Land Improvements Buildings Other Accounts 2) Determine the amount debited to Land, Land Improvements, and Building. 3) The cost assigned to the land, which is used as a plant site, will not be depreciated, while the costs assigned to land improvements will be depreciated. Explain this seemingly contradictory application of the concept of depreciation.

The following payments and receipts are related to land, land improvements, and building acquired for use in a wholesale apparel business. The receipts are identified by an asterisk. A) Finder’s fee paid to real estate agency……..$7,500 B) Cost of real estate acquired as a plant site: Land…….$210,000 Building….50,000 C) Fee paid to attorney for title search……..$2,500 D) Delinquent real estate taxes on property, assumed by purchaser……..$20,650 E) Cost of razing and removing building………….16,250 F) Cost of filling and grading land………12,500 G) Proceeds from sale of salvage materials from old building………$5,000* H) Architect’s and engineer’s fees for plans and supervision……….36,000 I) Special assessment paid to city for extension of water main to the property…8,000 J) Premium on one-year insurance policy during construction…….3,600 K) Money borrowed to pay building contractor……..900,000 L) Cost of trees and shrubbery planted……..18,000 M) Cost of repairing windstorm damage during construction…3,000 N) Cost of repairing vandalism damage during construction….4,200 O) Cost of paving parking lot to be used by customers……………15,000 P) Proceeds from insurances company for windstorm and vandalism damage…7,000* Q) Interest incurred on building loan during construction………….54,000 R) Payment to building contractor for new building……………..1,000,000 S) Refund of premium on insurance policy (i) canceled after 11 months…..600* Instructions 1) Assign each payment and receipt to Land (unlimited life), Land Improvements, (limited life), Building, or Other Accounts. Indicate receipts by an asterisk. Identify each item by letter and list the amounts in columnar form, as follows: Item Land Land Improvements Buildings Other Accounts 2) Determine the amount debited to Land, Land Improvements, and Building. 3) The cost assigned to the land, which is used as a plant site, will not be depreciated, while the costs assigned to land improvements will be depreciated. Explain this seemingly contradictory application of the concept of depreciation.

I have a driver and I want to start off with 1 truck on the roadway. I have a small expense account for fuel/maintenance etc but I'm trying to find the best way to buy the truck? Any suggestions? Are there small business loans out there and what is the best way to tell who to deal with?

I have a driver and I want to start off with 1 truck on the roadway. I have a small expense account for fuel/maintenance etc but I'm trying to find the best way to buy the truck? Any suggestions? Are there small business loans out there and what is the best way to tell who to deal with?

from this do you think? What if we pass 200 or even more? Is this maybe the greatest sign American's have no money to stick into bank accounts and the fact they don't have jobs to secure loans, thereby, running banks out of business for lack of making money on interest and investments?

from this do you think? What if we pass 200 or even more? Is this maybe the greatest sign American's have no money to stick into bank accounts and the fact they don't have jobs to secure loans, thereby, running banks out of business for lack of making money on interest and investments?

I am thinking about taking out a loan to buy a high-end salon in a wealthy area. There are currently 5 stations in the salon but there is room for more. I am curious why the current owner is ready to sell what seems to be a very profitable business. I am also considering adding a masseuse or spa, are these profitable?

I am thinking about taking out a loan to buy a high-end salon in a wealthy area. There are currently 5 stations in the salon but there is room for more. I am curious why the current owner is ready to sell what seems to be a very profitable business. I am also considering adding a masseuse or spa, are these profitable?

Can I take the car back since it's been more than the 4 days they are allotted to finalize the loan? Note: the dealership has not contacted me to change the loan just hasn't finalized. They say they need pay stubs which are the hold up. I don't want the car cuz it's a junker!

Can I take the car back since it's been more than the 4 days they are allotted to finalize the loan? Note: the dealership has not contacted me to change the loan just hasn't finalized. They say they need pay stubs which are the hold up. I don't want the car cuz it's a junker!

I went to a vocational school for graphic design for about 6 months and upon finding out their "associates" degree doesn't transfer (when they claimed it did) I dropped out. I have two loans one for $12,000 the other for $4,000 and the $12,000 loan has accumulated $9,000 in interest. The school went out of business (for obvious reasons) and had a class action suit against them that was settled (although only for those who completed their degree there). My question is what legal recourse do I have to request a reduction in costs based upon their false statements and that they are no longer a school so the degree would have been useless. I am a poor college student and need some help to figure out what I might be able to do, and I am hoping someone out there is just as fed up as I am with "educational" companies screwing over college students like this. Thanks.

I went to a vocational school for graphic design for about 6 months and upon finding out their "associates" degree doesn't transfer (when they claimed it did) I dropped out. I have two loans one for $12,000 the other for $4,000 and the $12,000 loan has accumulated $9,000 in interest. The school went out of business (for obvious reasons) and had a class action suit against them that was settled (although only for those who completed their degree there). My question is what legal recourse do I have to request a reduction in costs based upon their false statements and that they are no longer a school so the degree would have been useless. I am a poor college student and need some help to figure out what I might be able to do, and I am hoping someone out there is just as fed up as I am with "educational" companies screwing over college students like this. Thanks.

Have business credit card debt and business car loan

Have business credit card debt and business car loan

I am a student of 27 years old.I want to start a business of gemstone because I have two friends of mine who are working in mining area.They told me to find $ 35,000 so that I can buy from small seller in the mining then I will be selling to big companies but I dnt have capital to start that business.Any help or anyone whose know where I can get a loan of that amount?Give me deep details.

I am a student of 27 years old.I want to start a business of gemstone because I have two friends of mine who are working in mining area.They told me to find $ 35,000 so that I can buy from small seller in the mining then I will be selling to big companies but I dnt have capital to start that business.Any help or anyone whose know where I can get a loan of that amount?Give me deep details.

Helping small businesses and entrepreneurs with bank loans and potentially giving the ma and pop type shops tax breaks. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/obama-plan-to-fund-300-billion-of-small-business-loans-faces-senate-vote.html

Helping small businesses and entrepreneurs with bank loans and potentially giving the ma and pop type shops tax breaks. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/obama-plan-to-fund-300-billion-of-small-business-loans-faces-senate-vote.html

I am looking for info on Venture capitalist, International loans etc.. Starting a business venture in West Africa i have all my stuff ready but no money. any help? thanks

I am looking for info on Venture capitalist, International loans etc.. Starting a business venture in West Africa i have all my stuff ready but no money. any help? thanks

Which of the following accounts would be included in the asset section of the balance sheet? owner’s withdrawal furniture repairs and maintenance patient revenues Which of the following accounts would be included in the liability section of the balance sheet? owner’s withdrawal office equipment bank loan patient revenues Assume Mr. Jones owned a tire store. He was offered a job working for his competitor making $2,400 a month. Which financial statement would he look at to determine if his average profit was more or less than $2,400 per month? income statement statement of owner’s equity balance sheet Assume Ms. Anderson owned a corner convenience store. She had not been very successful at this business. She had taken out numerous loans and owed many creditors. What statement would she look at to determine the total amount of liabilities she owed? income statement statement of owner’s equity balance sheet

Which of the following accounts would be included in the asset section of the balance sheet? owner’s withdrawal furniture repairs and maintenance patient revenues Which of the following accounts would be included in the liability section of the balance sheet? owner’s withdrawal office equipment bank loan patient revenues Assume Mr. Jones owned a tire store. He was offered a job working for his competitor making $2,400 a month. Which financial statement would he look at to determine if his average profit was more or less than $2,400 per month? income statement statement of owner’s equity balance sheet Assume Ms. Anderson owned a corner convenience store. She had not been very successful at this business. She had taken out numerous loans and owed many creditors. What statement would she look at to determine the total amount of liabilities she owed? income statement statement of owner’s equity balance sheet

My father and I are not on good terms. A week ago he loaned me $500 for a legal matter. I will have the $500 in a few days, but I also want to pay interest to my father. How much should I give my father -- showing him I am paying him interest and this was a business deal -- AND that I am good for the money? How much would you suggest? Please and thanks. I don't mean "business deal" as in actual "business deal." I just mean, that he and I are NOT on good terms, and this is strictly a financial loan from my father for a legal matter I had. So for 2 weeks time, how much interest? $50 seems a lot for 2 weeks...

My father and I are not on good terms. A week ago he loaned me $500 for a legal matter. I will have the $500 in a few days, but I also want to pay interest to my father. How much should I give my father -- showing him I am paying him interest and this was a business deal -- AND that I am good for the money? How much would you suggest? Please and thanks. I don't mean "business deal" as in actual "business deal." I just mean, that he and I are NOT on good terms, and this is strictly a financial loan from my father for a legal matter I had. So for 2 weeks time, how much interest? $50 seems a lot for 2 weeks...

We bailed out Wall Street. Now they're reeling in profits and sitting on the money. Banks aren't loaning to small business men. Businesses aren't hiring. The Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to impede any progress toward recovery. I say we never bail them out again. What do you say? @Jake - Bush gave them money. Obama loaned them money and got it back with 8.5% interest.

We bailed out Wall Street. Now they're reeling in profits and sitting on the money. Banks aren't loaning to small business men. Businesses aren't hiring. The Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to impede any progress toward recovery. I say we never bail them out again. What do you say? @Jake - Bush gave them money. Obama loaned them money and got it back with 8.5% interest.

Hi I am a young entrepreneur who has been in business for a few years. For the first few years my business was showing a loss or break even in profit margin. This year has been a much better year for me and I am looking to purchase a truck for the business, but there is a problem. I am 24, I just moved out of my parents house, I have little credit history, and have not showed any income in the past few years. I have the money to buy the truck but I would like to get a loan for it to build up credit for future investments and purchases. What is the best way to approach my bank regarding this matter? The truck I am buying is at an incredible deal....it is being sold for less than half of the Kelly Blue Book value because the owner is in a tight financial spot. Should I look into a private loan, business loan or something else? I have thought that if all else fails I could ask the bank to give me a loan for %50 percent of the price and then use the truck as collateral. Please let me know if this is possible and point me in the right direction.

Hi I am a young entrepreneur who has been in business for a few years. For the first few years my business was showing a loss or break even in profit margin. This year has been a much better year for me and I am looking to purchase a truck for the business, but there is a problem. I am 24, I just moved out of my parents house, I have little credit history, and have not showed any income in the past few years. I have the money to buy the truck but I would like to get a loan for it to build up credit for future investments and purchases. What is the best way to approach my bank regarding this matter? The truck I am buying is at an incredible deal....it is being sold for less than half of the Kelly Blue Book value because the owner is in a tight financial spot. Should I look into a private loan, business loan or something else? I have thought that if all else fails I could ask the bank to give me a loan for %50 percent of the price and then use the truck as collateral. Please let me know if this is possible and point me in the right direction.

* Virtually everything you look at is broken and unfixable, from both a mathematical and political standpoint. * All democratic welfare states are insolvent and incapable of meeting their obligations. * Sovereign defaults are likely and will likely occur in domino fashion. * Insane economic policies and regulations are making matters worse. * Businesses are not hiring or investing because of the uncertainty that has been imposed on the country. * Wealth, intellect, and corporations will flee this country. * More than half of the states are likely to default on their obligations. * Most major municipalities have pension obligations that will be unable to be met. * Individuals are still over their heads in debt with no hope in sight. * The housing market has farther to go on the downside. Foreclosures will accelerate. * Commercial real estate is a disaster that has not yet hit full force. * Joblessness is not improving and will get worse. * Infrastructure has deteriorated. There are no funds available upgrade it to proper standards. * Private pensions and union pensions are grossly underfunded and likely to become worse when financial markets tank. * The welfare system is unsustainable and has to be dismantled. * Generations have grown accustomed to entitlements and will not take kindly to the necessary reductions and eliminations. * Education has deteriorated to levels such that many graduates are literally unemployable at a minimum wage, or at any wage. * The banking system is insolvent, with many banks unlikely to survive. * Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable programs that will collapse or have benefits so reduced as to make them virtually unrecognizable. * Government guarantees of Fannie, Freddie, FHA, and a host of other programs will likely require $2 trillion-plus to honor at taxpayer expense. * Anything the government touches, it destroys, be it social programs, the post office, Amtrak, education, or (soon to be) the entire credit system, General Motors, student loans, etc. -- and finally, the entire economy. * The FDIC is in a deep hole from which there is no escape other than additional taxpayer bailouts. Are we just playing a shell game at this point and just pretending to be solvent, when we all know we aren't? Typical tripe answers by those who wish to continue to fiddle while Rome burns. Double, guess you are one of those that would like to ignore the problem until it swims up and eats you alive.

* Virtually everything you look at is broken and unfixable, from both a mathematical and political standpoint. * All democratic welfare states are insolvent and incapable of meeting their obligations. * Sovereign defaults are likely and will likely occur in domino fashion. * Insane economic policies and regulations are making matters worse. * Businesses are not hiring or investing because of the uncertainty that has been imposed on the country. * Wealth, intellect, and corporations will flee this country. * More than half of the states are likely to default on their obligations. * Most major municipalities have pension obligations that will be unable to be met. * Individuals are still over their heads in debt with no hope in sight. * The housing market has farther to go on the downside. Foreclosures will accelerate. * Commercial real estate is a disaster that has not yet hit full force. * Joblessness is not improving and will get worse. * Infrastructure has deteriorated. There are no funds available upgrade it to proper standards. * Private pensions and union pensions are grossly underfunded and likely to become worse when financial markets tank. * The welfare system is unsustainable and has to be dismantled. * Generations have grown accustomed to entitlements and will not take kindly to the necessary reductions and eliminations. * Education has deteriorated to levels such that many graduates are literally unemployable at a minimum wage, or at any wage. * The banking system is insolvent, with many banks unlikely to survive. * Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable programs that will collapse or have benefits so reduced as to make them virtually unrecognizable. * Government guarantees of Fannie, Freddie, FHA, and a host of other programs will likely require $2 trillion-plus to honor at taxpayer expense. * Anything the government touches, it destroys, be it social programs, the post office, Amtrak, education, or (soon to be) the entire credit system, General Motors, student loans, etc. -- and finally, the entire economy. * The FDIC is in a deep hole from which there is no escape other than additional taxpayer bailouts. Are we just playing a shell game at this point and just pretending to be solvent, when we all know we aren't? Typical tripe answers by those who wish to continue to fiddle while Rome burns. Double, guess you are one of those that would like to ignore the problem until it swims up and eats you alive.

I currently work 2 jobs. One of them will result in a MAJOR hour cut once school starts back. Now I have to consider either getting a third job or taking out a student loan. If I do the 3rd job that REALLY cuts into study time (I'm taking business calculus, microeconomics, Spanish 2 and world religions) but I REALLY don't want to take out a loan due to having to pay it back for years to come. I have to do one or the other or I won't be able to support my son and I. What would you suggest??? I have financial aid but can't get the refund until like Thanksgiving. Doesn't pay bills until then.

I currently work 2 jobs. One of them will result in a MAJOR hour cut once school starts back. Now I have to consider either getting a third job or taking out a student loan. If I do the 3rd job that REALLY cuts into study time (I'm taking business calculus, microeconomics, Spanish 2 and world religions) but I REALLY don't want to take out a loan due to having to pay it back for years to come. I have to do one or the other or I won't be able to support my son and I. What would you suggest??? I have financial aid but can't get the refund until like Thanksgiving. Doesn't pay bills until then.

bythe very political infrastructure that is supposed to protect & help them. Social Darwinism is premised on the idea that the playing field is equal, and therefore those who do not win are failing because they themselves , for cultural, ideological, or , in some cases, racial reasons are unequal to those who do. There are rampant levels of poverty that exist among the Black segments of America's population, poverty that can be directly traced to FHA loans given by the government to American citizens in the 1960's to start business, pay for college, etc but loans which were withheld from Americans of color; the impact of this has been generational, and quantitatiely in the billions of dollars. Does being lazy include getting screwed by your government?

bythe very political infrastructure that is supposed to protect & help them. Social Darwinism is premised on the idea that the playing field is equal, and therefore those who do not win are failing because they themselves , for cultural, ideological, or , in some cases, racial reasons are unequal to those who do. There are rampant levels of poverty that exist among the Black segments of America's population, poverty that can be directly traced to FHA loans given by the government to American citizens in the 1960's to start business, pay for college, etc but loans which were withheld from Americans of color; the impact of this has been generational, and quantitatiely in the billions of dollars. Does being lazy include getting screwed by your government?

Okay, pretty much everyone here knows I'm getting married and that my fiance lives with me & that I pay all the bills. He doesn't have a job, but is looking for one. We moved to the area about a year ago, and he's just now started making local friends. I'm very happy he has friends. They all hang out often, and are pretty good people, just with a bit of a MJ addiction. NOW - let me say first off that his new friends are helping me and my fiance out a lot. I've had to save money for important things which leaves my budget at about 0 for food and gas and any other essentials. I still don't have enough money for the business trip I'm required to take in 2 weeks. They'll reimburse me, but I can't even afford to take out a loan right now. Our old roomie is getting a loan so he can move into an apartment with his fiance. He's being so generous as to request money for us so that I can go to the trip and pay him back afterwords. He's also bought us some food so we can live. I'm not asking for advice about money or food. He's staying over the week, and he's giving us the money because he and my fiance are best friends. I don't mind that he's staying over. Now - moving on - his new friends have been helping us out with gas money, and trying to fix my car troubles. I really appreciate all their help and their bonding with my fiance and all, but I'm really starting to have issues with them. The only issue I have: They hang out at my apartment 7 days a week. I usually work overtime and have an hour and a half trip commute for work each way. When I get home, I'm exhausted and all I want is food, TV, and sleep. For the past 2 weeks, his friends have been at the apartment all but 2 days. Usually they're sleeping over. My lease says I'm not allowed to have guests over for more than 7 days. I don't mind if they come over often, but practically every single day is really killing me. I enjoy my privacy and like doing stuff when I'm at the apartment that I wouldn't do in public. I appreciate that my fiance has friends and that they're good people and helping us and all that, but what I'm asking for is that they only spend 4 days over at the apartment per week instead of 7. I'm willing to go as high as 5, but it would severely put me out for it to be every single day. I hate being on my best behavior at work only to come home to entertain guests. And that puts my quality time with my fiance at about 0. Again, I don't mind having them over, but they're really making it their prime hang-out spot when they just barely know us. If it weren't for them helping us out so much I would say I'm being used. I've asked my fiance to cut the amount of time they're over here down several times before, but he just doesn't listen. I was having severe pain and stomach cramps when I got home yesterday because of an adverse reaction to medication I just started taking, and he had his buddy spend the night! So, it was my fiance and I and two guests. Am I in the wrong? Should I stop pushing him to cut the time down? Please, I would like honest answers. Thanks! Please remember - I don't mind them spending the majority of the week over (4-5 days), but 7 is killer. I spend time on here when I'm between projects. I'm a fast typer, and quick with a computer. There are days I go without touching this site. And most people shove piles of work at me at 5:25pm. I love those people (High Sarcasm.) Please note: I can easily live off PB&J and Ramen Noodle. We have enough dry goods to last us until I can get up the funds, but they're supplying us with meat. And the one who's supplying the food is the one who's staying over who used to be our roomie. I don't mind him being over at all! He respects our space and doesn't require a lot of company. They're ususally over to play video games and yak it up. During the day time they go out together and look for work. If it weren't for the upcoming wedding and all the car troubles, we'd be OK on funds. I've already paid $2.5 grand on the wedding, and 2 grand on car tune-ups. I just don't have the money to cover anything else at this point. And there's only going to be 30 ppl at the wedding. I've been with him for 8 years and finally said yes to his proposal. There are millions of reasons I'm marrying him - he's not leeching off of me, and he really does support me a lot in his own way. I don't want to write a novel about everything in our relationship. I just wanted to know what people thought about this specific issue. That's all. He asked me to marry him month 1 of us going out. I didn't say yes until last year (at that time after 7 years of us dating). Does that honestly sound like a woman who's desperate for marriage?

Okay, pretty much everyone here knows I'm getting married and that my fiance lives with me & that I pay all the bills. He doesn't have a job, but is looking for one. We moved to the area about a year ago, and he's just now started making local friends. I'm very happy he has friends. They all hang out often, and are pretty good people, just with a bit of a MJ addiction. NOW - let me say first off that his new friends are helping me and my fiance out a lot. I've had to save money for important things which leaves my budget at about 0 for food and gas and any other essentials. I still don't have enough money for the business trip I'm required to take in 2 weeks. They'll reimburse me, but I can't even afford to take out a loan right now. Our old roomie is getting a loan so he can move into an apartment with his fiance. He's being so generous as to request money for us so that I can go to the trip and pay him back afterwords. He's also bought us some food so we can live. I'm not asking for advice about money or food. He's staying over the week, and he's giving us the money because he and my fiance are best friends. I don't mind that he's staying over. Now - moving on - his new friends have been helping us out with gas money, and trying to fix my car troubles. I really appreciate all their help and their bonding with my fiance and all, but I'm really starting to have issues with them. The only issue I have: They hang out at my apartment 7 days a week. I usually work overtime and have an hour and a half trip commute for work each way. When I get home, I'm exhausted and all I want is food, TV, and sleep. For the past 2 weeks, his friends have been at the apartment all but 2 days. Usually they're sleeping over. My lease says I'm not allowed to have guests over for more than 7 days. I don't mind if they come over often, but practically every single day is really killing me. I enjoy my privacy and like doing stuff when I'm at the apartment that I wouldn't do in public. I appreciate that my fiance has friends and that they're good people and helping us and all that, but what I'm asking for is that they only spend 4 days over at the apartment per week instead of 7. I'm willing to go as high as 5, but it would severely put me out for it to be every single day. I hate being on my best behavior at work only to come home to entertain guests. And that puts my quality time with my fiance at about 0. Again, I don't mind having them over, but they're really making it their prime hang-out spot when they just barely know us. If it weren't for them helping us out so much I would say I'm being used. I've asked my fiance to cut the amount of time they're over here down several times before, but he just doesn't listen. I was having severe pain and stomach cramps when I got home yesterday because of an adverse reaction to medication I just started taking, and he had his buddy spend the night! So, it was my fiance and I and two guests. Am I in the wrong? Should I stop pushing him to cut the time down? Please, I would like honest answers. Thanks! Please remember - I don't mind them spending the majority of the week over (4-5 days), but 7 is killer. I spend time on here when I'm between projects. I'm a fast typer, and quick with a computer. There are days I go without touching this site. And most people shove piles of work at me at 5:25pm. I love those people (High Sarcasm.) Please note: I can easily live off PB&J and Ramen Noodle. We have enough dry goods to last us until I can get up the funds, but they're supplying us with meat. And the one who's supplying the food is the one who's staying over who used to be our roomie. I don't mind him being over at all! He respects our space and doesn't require a lot of company. They're ususally over to play video games and yak it up. During the day time they go out together and look for work. If it weren't for the upcoming wedding and all the car troubles, we'd be OK on funds. I've already paid $2.5 grand on the wedding, and 2 grand on car tune-ups. I just don't have the money to cover anything else at this point. And there's only going to be 30 ppl at the wedding. I've been with him for 8 years and finally said yes to his proposal. There are millions of reasons I'm marrying him - he's not leeching off of me, and he really does support me a lot in his own way. I don't want to write a novel about everything in our relationship. I just wanted to know what people thought about this specific issue. That's all. He asked me to marry him month 1 of us going out. I didn't say yes until last year (at that time after 7 years of us dating). Does that honestly sound like a woman who's desperate for marriage?

My husband and I are trying to get out of debt, paying off credit cards, student loans, etc. We have made quite a dent in the past two years considering we have a six year old, four year old, and one year old. We have a decent amount of scrap gold and silver we would like to sell to pay off debt or invest in my husbands business (he needs cash for a buying trip as we sell items online). We have a friend that does this and will give us a fair price for it. Do we hold onto it and hope that the prices continue to climb, or go ahead and sell it and pay towards our debt or invest in the business now? When do you think it will reach it's peak price?

My husband and I are trying to get out of debt, paying off credit cards, student loans, etc. We have made quite a dent in the past two years considering we have a six year old, four year old, and one year old. We have a decent amount of scrap gold and silver we would like to sell to pay off debt or invest in my husbands business (he needs cash for a buying trip as we sell items online). We have a friend that does this and will give us a fair price for it. Do we hold onto it and hope that the prices continue to climb, or go ahead and sell it and pay towards our debt or invest in the business now? When do you think it will reach it's peak price?

That's the problem - they don't play fair. They manipulate markets, drive speculative buying, use insider trading tips to get rich off everybody else's misery, and hide their money in offshore, tax-free banks just before the crash. That's just fine with anti-Government, tax hating Cons. All the regulations we had, and Republicans cancelled every time, were from hard learned, painful lessons from the Great Depression and the massive Savinigs and Loan Collapse and punishing Recession following Reagan's two terms. What's their solution? "HEY! LET'S DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN!!!" Oops, I left out that they rewrite their contracts in the last minute so they get huge multi-million dollar payouts even AFTER their companies crash and are losing billions of dollars. I've never quite figured that one out. And the "fair" result would have been for them to lose their jobs, have the companies fail, and let the shareholders sue them for personal assets. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! Because Bush ran in and gave them 700 billion dollars! WHAT'S FAIR ABOUT THIS!

That's the problem - they don't play fair. They manipulate markets, drive speculative buying, use insider trading tips to get rich off everybody else's misery, and hide their money in offshore, tax-free banks just before the crash. That's just fine with anti-Government, tax hating Cons. All the regulations we had, and Republicans cancelled every time, were from hard learned, painful lessons from the Great Depression and the massive Savinigs and Loan Collapse and punishing Recession following Reagan's two terms. What's their solution? "HEY! LET'S DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN!!!" Oops, I left out that they rewrite their contracts in the last minute so they get huge multi-million dollar payouts even AFTER their companies crash and are losing billions of dollars. I've never quite figured that one out. And the "fair" result would have been for them to lose their jobs, have the companies fail, and let the shareholders sue them for personal assets. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! Because Bush ran in and gave them 700 billion dollars! WHAT'S FAIR ABOUT THIS!

I would appreciate any suggestions on how to find investors or how to get a start up loan.

I would appreciate any suggestions on how to find investors or how to get a start up loan.

I know its long but please, I need advice Well I'm a teenager, i have a sister who's 18, and a baby sister. My mom is a stay at home mom, and my dad works Mon-Fri from 12 P.M to 4 A.M, so that makes it 16 hours. We have an income of about 3000 a month, we're always arguing about money, we live in a small apartment, its been like this for ten years, I'm so sick of it. Well we were once the wealthiest of the wealthy, my father and his brothers owned about four Dunkin Donuts stores, he married my mother at a young age.. 18, promising her that she will resume her education after the marriage, but of course he lied. Well up until i was about four we were living in a beautiful rental apartment in a highrise building in NYC. All that time my dad was a heavy spender, he would spend on luxury furniture, designer clothing, everything, but he would never save up money to buy a house, hell he didn't need to save up, all he needed to do was go to the bank for a loan, but he didn't because all his life he made bad decisions and he never thought of his family's future. Well the day came when it all ended. my uncle began arguing with the Dunkin Donuts Company and so we had to sell the stores, well of course the four stores made about 1.2 million dollars. My Dad has four brothers, so they were supposed to divide equally, so what happened was the my uncles divided the money evenly and left my dad with nothing, and he said nothing about it, and barely asked for his share even though he's the one that worked hardest in the business. (The four stores were under my grandfathers name), Each one of my uncles lives in a huge beautiful house now and we're stuck in a small apartment. My mother couldn't resume her education because of my father, therefore we're on one income, my dad has a bachelors degree in business, but he couldn't work in it because he has no experience, and he's now stuck working as a pharmacy technician, with about 3000 a month as I said, with no hope of ever buying a house. Everty time I look at him I blame him for what he did, and what he didn't do (ask for his share and fight for it, and go and buy a house while all the money was pouring in, the heavy spending and the lack of saving) And now I'm stuck in a small apartment two siblings and two parents, cramped and small, I never lived a life where i could be proud of my own house and play in the backyard and invite friends over. All because of him, all my other friends have a house, a feeling of safety of stability, not the feeling of the landlord can kick you out any second. What would you do in my situation? How would you feel? Please no mean answers, put yourself in my situation, we didn't start out like this, but my dad's poor decisions got us here, my die a million times when I see my cousins living in OUR money and my dad acts like nothing ever happened even thou they robbed him, and ruined his credit

I know its long but please, I need advice Well I'm a teenager, i have a sister who's 18, and a baby sister. My mom is a stay at home mom, and my dad works Mon-Fri from 12 P.M to 4 A.M, so that makes it 16 hours. We have an income of about 3000 a month, we're always arguing about money, we live in a small apartment, its been like this for ten years, I'm so sick of it. Well we were once the wealthiest of the wealthy, my father and his brothers owned about four Dunkin Donuts stores, he married my mother at a young age.. 18, promising her that she will resume her education after the marriage, but of course he lied. Well up until i was about four we were living in a beautiful rental apartment in a highrise building in NYC. All that time my dad was a heavy spender, he would spend on luxury furniture, designer clothing, everything, but he would never save up money to buy a house, hell he didn't need to save up, all he needed to do was go to the bank for a loan, but he didn't because all his life he made bad decisions and he never thought of his family's future. Well the day came when it all ended. my uncle began arguing with the Dunkin Donuts Company and so we had to sell the stores, well of course the four stores made about 1.2 million dollars. My Dad has four brothers, so they were supposed to divide equally, so what happened was the my uncles divided the money evenly and left my dad with nothing, and he said nothing about it, and barely asked for his share even though he's the one that worked hardest in the business. (The four stores were under my grandfathers name), Each one of my uncles lives in a huge beautiful house now and we're stuck in a small apartment. My mother couldn't resume her education because of my father, therefore we're on one income, my dad has a bachelors degree in business, but he couldn't work in it because he has no experience, and he's now stuck working as a pharmacy technician, with about 3000 a month as I said, with no hope of ever buying a house. Everty time I look at him I blame him for what he did, and what he didn't do (ask for his share and fight for it, and go and buy a house while all the money was pouring in, the heavy spending and the lack of saving) And now I'm stuck in a small apartment two siblings and two parents, cramped and small, I never lived a life where i could be proud of my own house and play in the backyard and invite friends over. All because of him, all my other friends have a house, a feeling of safety of stability, not the feeling of the landlord can kick you out any second. What would you do in my situation? How would you feel? Please no mean answers, put yourself in my situation, we didn't start out like this, but my dad's poor decisions got us here, my die a million times when I see my cousins living in OUR money and my dad acts like nothing ever happened even thou they robbed him, and ruined his credit

I have a full time job and I do some housekeeping during my extra time. Well what do I have to do so that my housekeeping income is used as a official part time job so for example I am able to put it down as a sorce of income for a car loan or a home loan?

I have a full time job and I do some housekeeping during my extra time. Well what do I have to do so that my housekeeping income is used as a official part time job so for example I am able to put it down as a sorce of income for a car loan or a home loan?

Ikuto starts a business and borrows $100 000 at 4.2% compounded monthly. He can afford to make payments between $1000 and $1500 per month. How much sooner can he pay off the loan if he pays the maximum amount compared to the minimum amount? Full solutions and answers please.

Ikuto starts a business and borrows $100 000 at 4.2% compounded monthly. He can afford to make payments between $1000 and $1500 per month. How much sooner can he pay off the loan if he pays the maximum amount compared to the minimum amount? Full solutions and answers please.

Ikuto starts a business and borrows $100 000 at 4.2% compounded monthly. He can afford to make payments between $1000 and $1500 per month. How much sooner can he pay off the loan if he pays the maximum amount compared with the minimum amount? Please help me solve this XD Love and Thanks!!!

Ikuto starts a business and borrows $100 000 at 4.2% compounded monthly. He can afford to make payments between $1000 and $1500 per month. How much sooner can he pay off the loan if he pays the maximum amount compared with the minimum amount? Please help me solve this XD Love and Thanks!!!

My sole source of income was my business. I am personal guarantor to several business loans. I have no money coming in, and still things like rent to pay (already been evicted one this year). My wife is studying, and can't help much. I am not sure what I can do. Any advice would be appreciated. Please stop replying with crap get rich links. Just to extend this, I have been self employed for a long time, and no one seems to want to employ an ex-self employed person. I was even turned down for a paper round!

My sole source of income was my business. I am personal guarantor to several business loans. I have no money coming in, and still things like rent to pay (already been evicted one this year). My wife is studying, and can't help much. I am not sure what I can do. Any advice would be appreciated. Please stop replying with crap get rich links. Just to extend this, I have been self employed for a long time, and no one seems to want to employ an ex-self employed person. I was even turned down for a paper round!

I live in the state of Oregon and I am not a citizen of the United States. I want to major in Business. Personally, I do not want to go to a college in Oregon because they really are not the best. But I don't think I can support myself financially if I go out of state. I know what I want to do in life and I'm ready to get started. Should I just choose an In-State college for sake of money or should I go Out-of-State by getting loans(if I qualify..) but having a brighter future? OR should I go to a school in Oregon for about 2 years and then transfer to a better school out of state? I really don't know what's the best. Please HELP!!

I live in the state of Oregon and I am not a citizen of the United States. I want to major in Business. Personally, I do not want to go to a college in Oregon because they really are not the best. But I don't think I can support myself financially if I go out of state. I know what I want to do in life and I'm ready to get started. Should I just choose an In-State college for sake of money or should I go Out-of-State by getting loans(if I qualify..) but having a brighter future? OR should I go to a school in Oregon for about 2 years and then transfer to a better school out of state? I really don't know what's the best. Please HELP!!

to open a new business? What do they need to know when you apply? I'm not telling you what my idea is.

to open a new business? What do they need to know when you apply? I'm not telling you what my idea is.

Why wont they? They best they can even offer are loans. I am a small business owner and I don't need LOANS. I need more revenue. I don't know any business that needs or wants a loan right now. If anything they are trying to pay off their debts so they will have more liquid cash on hand. The only way I can get more revenue is through more business or less taxes. Why is it they were willing to give so many bureaucracies free money? Yet they wont even temporarily reduce the payroll tax contributions I have to make?

Why wont they? They best they can even offer are loans. I am a small business owner and I don't need LOANS. I need more revenue. I don't know any business that needs or wants a loan right now. If anything they are trying to pay off their debts so they will have more liquid cash on hand. The only way I can get more revenue is through more business or less taxes. Why is it they were willing to give so many bureaucracies free money? Yet they wont even temporarily reduce the payroll tax contributions I have to make?

it has found a bank willing to loan them the 2,700,000 at an interest rate of 12% for 20 years. With the loan in place the bank has given your client two options on payments.Option 1: Your client is required to make monthly payments on this loan. Option 2: Your client has to incorporate the business and sell bonds. The bonds would be 30-year, 1,000 bonds paying 6% interest semiannually.

it has found a bank willing to loan them the 2,700,000 at an interest rate of 12% for 20 years. With the loan in place the bank has given your client two options on payments.Option 1: Your client is required to make monthly payments on this loan. Option 2: Your client has to incorporate the business and sell bonds. The bonds would be 30-year, 1,000 bonds paying 6% interest semiannually.

I acheived 30 some hard-earned credits in accounting and business related courses at the University of Pheonix. Then when I tried to tranfer my credits to Florida Atlantic University, they would not accept ANY of my credits from the University of Pheonix. I feel that I was misled by the University of Pheonix and as a result, I am not paying back these federal loans. Therefore, similar to my prime rate mortgage, I will refuse to pay these federal loans! Is anyone else out there experiencing this?

I acheived 30 some hard-earned credits in accounting and business related courses at the University of Pheonix. Then when I tried to tranfer my credits to Florida Atlantic University, they would not accept ANY of my credits from the University of Pheonix. I feel that I was misled by the University of Pheonix and as a result, I am not paying back these federal loans. Therefore, similar to my prime rate mortgage, I will refuse to pay these federal loans! Is anyone else out there experiencing this?

Yes, Obama has spent a great deal on stimulus loans to companies, but at least he didn't borrow it from China. He didn't dump billions in to a SDI system that no one said would work. He didn't set a record of dumping money in to no-bid contracts. It blows my mind, how Reagan is a God and Obama is just wasting government money on business loans that will hopefully get paid back and help the economy. @fatboy. I voted for Reagan. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Yes, Obama has spent a great deal on stimulus loans to companies, but at least he didn't borrow it from China. He didn't dump billions in to a SDI system that no one said would work. He didn't set a record of dumping money in to no-bid contracts. It blows my mind, how Reagan is a God and Obama is just wasting government money on business loans that will hopefully get paid back and help the economy. @fatboy. I voted for Reagan. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I had a online payday loan I took out in 04'. I made 3 or 4 payments b4 I lost my job and forgot all about it. Well, the company quickpayday loans went out of business and another company bought the account. I had that other company call me after over 6 yrs since I took out the loan. I had every intention of paying it but the 2 different reps at the company gave me 2 different info's as to acct #, the name of the company they were with, 2 different amounts I supposidly owe, and the phone number comes up a man out of Atlanta GA. With Credit Card fraud and identity theft, I couldnt trust the misleading ifo they were providing. When I asked the one rep this morning for quickpayday loans' contact info, prior to knowing they were no longer in business, she said they were no longer in business, her company bought out the business, and I was not wanting to pay it. I told her that if I didnt want to pay it, I wouldnt have made 3 or 4 payments before loosing me job, of whom I used my work email as contact info, I wouldnt have made 7-8 calls to them in the last 4 days to try to rectify this, that the only reason I am not giving my creditcard info over the phone is being they sound suspicious, identity theft, and I wanted written proof showing I owe this so I have it for my records to pay it. She started threatening me saying they will take me to court, and I was trying to get away with no paying them. I told her ma'm take me to court and I hope you have recorded every conversation I have had with your company and I will inform the judge that you all have diff stories, different info. That I have no problem paying a debt I owe but I want proof and you all have not called me, my # has been the same for 10yrs, mailed me any proof, and you come out of the woodworks and just expect me to give you creditcard info? Fine take me to court. She made it seem like they're gonna throw me in jail!!!! I figure they cant take what I dont have so....I can only let them take me to court, and pay what I can If the judge tells me to....can you tell me what you think or what ?????

I had a online payday loan I took out in 04'. I made 3 or 4 payments b4 I lost my job and forgot all about it. Well, the company quickpayday loans went out of business and another company bought the account. I had that other company call me after over 6 yrs since I took out the loan. I had every intention of paying it but the 2 different reps at the company gave me 2 different info's as to acct #, the name of the company they were with, 2 different amounts I supposidly owe, and the phone number comes up a man out of Atlanta GA. With Credit Card fraud and identity theft, I couldnt trust the misleading ifo they were providing. When I asked the one rep this morning for quickpayday loans' contact info, prior to knowing they were no longer in business, she said they were no longer in business, her company bought out the business, and I was not wanting to pay it. I told her that if I didnt want to pay it, I wouldnt have made 3 or 4 payments before loosing me job, of whom I used my work email as contact info, I wouldnt have made 7-8 calls to them in the last 4 days to try to rectify this, that the only reason I am not giving my creditcard info over the phone is being they sound suspicious, identity theft, and I wanted written proof showing I owe this so I have it for my records to pay it. She started threatening me saying they will take me to court, and I was trying to get away with no paying them. I told her ma'm take me to court and I hope you have recorded every conversation I have had with your company and I will inform the judge that you all have diff stories, different info. That I have no problem paying a debt I owe but I want proof and you all have not called me, my # has been the same for 10yrs, mailed me any proof, and you come out of the woodworks and just expect me to give you creditcard info? Fine take me to court. She made it seem like they're gonna throw me in jail!!!! I figure they cant take what I dont have so....I can only let them take me to court, and pay what I can If the judge tells me to....can you tell me what you think or what ?????

I am going to be starting up a grooming salon. I already have the shop that I am going to lease from my grandpa. All I have left is to go to the bank and get a business loan, and I need a business plan. Just wondering if there is anyone out here with advice who had their own pet salon that could help me out! Any good online business plans out there?? Thanks so much! And Yes I am a pet lover, I have had dogs all my life. And Im not the one doing the grooming. An experienced groomer is doing it. If you dont have good advice...please dont waste your time commenting. I wouldnt be doing this if I was not an animal lover. I am a vet tech and have cared for animals my whole life!

I am going to be starting up a grooming salon. I already have the shop that I am going to lease from my grandpa. All I have left is to go to the bank and get a business loan, and I need a business plan. Just wondering if there is anyone out here with advice who had their own pet salon that could help me out! Any good online business plans out there?? Thanks so much! And Yes I am a pet lover, I have had dogs all my life. And Im not the one doing the grooming. An experienced groomer is doing it. If you dont have good advice...please dont waste your time commenting. I wouldnt be doing this if I was not an animal lover. I am a vet tech and have cared for animals my whole life!

Conservatives claim NON-whites want hand-outs and Liberals have them on a "plantation" IF conservatives cared about NON-White independence, where is the "CONSERVATIVE Business Loans to NON-Whites Foundation"?

Conservatives claim NON-whites want hand-outs and Liberals have them on a "plantation" IF conservatives cared about NON-White independence, where is the "CONSERVATIVE Business Loans to NON-Whites Foundation"?

My wife and I were the victims of a crime in 2004 (our former business partner turned out to be a previously sued con artist under a different name). In the end we were forced to file for bankruptcy just to get this scum out of our lives which unfortunately also sent our home into foreclosure. The bankruptcy was in December 2008, the foreclosure was in June 2009. How long before we would be able to buy a home again? We're both in our 40s and make decent money as an IT manager and an architect. Our credit ratings were 800+ for both of us prior to the damage done by this animal. We also had never missed a single mortgage payment in an 18 year marriage. Do lenders take circumstances into account when deciding to underwrite a loan? Any and all opinions will be appreciated and thanks for responding to this lousy situation.

My wife and I were the victims of a crime in 2004 (our former business partner turned out to be a previously sued con artist under a different name). In the end we were forced to file for bankruptcy just to get this scum out of our lives which unfortunately also sent our home into foreclosure. The bankruptcy was in December 2008, the foreclosure was in June 2009. How long before we would be able to buy a home again? We're both in our 40s and make decent money as an IT manager and an architect. Our credit ratings were 800+ for both of us prior to the damage done by this animal. We also had never missed a single mortgage payment in an 18 year marriage. Do lenders take circumstances into account when deciding to underwrite a loan? Any and all opinions will be appreciated and thanks for responding to this lousy situation.