ProgressOhio

Here are the facts on Credit Union lending and how it compares with the 'evil' payday lenders.

CREDIT UNION (STRETCHPAY):
Credit limits/minimum advances of $250 (with an annual fee of $35) or $500 (with an annual fee of $70);
APR of 18% (or any higher rate the state sets): $7.50 for a 30-day loan. Total Cost $77.50.

EVIL, EVIL PAYDAY LENDER:
"expensive for-profit payday lenders that often charge $15 per $100" - That's from the Credit Union's page. Some payday lenders charge less, but that was the highest rate they could find.
Total Cost $75.00.

It's no wonder the CREDIT UNIONS and other lending institutions are behind this push to remove payday lenders from Ohio. They want to cash in.

The truth is right there. CREDIT UNIONS will actually be charging MORE than the payday lenders.

If you don't believe it, look at their own page:
http://www.ohiocreditunions.org/StretchPay/CUInfo.htm

I found an interesting opinion article in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080807/COL05/808070332/

Yep, the Democrats are doing everything they can to restore civility in Congress. I guess the single-digit approval rating they now sport is a great indication of how well they've performed.

Gov. Strickland is trying to keep the "paid sick day's bill" from coming to a vote. If not successful, he will work against its passage. Finally, a Democrat who understands - the way this bill is written, it is bad for Ohio.

The Strickland administration has sent letters to about 500 business leaders and business representatives in a last-ditch effort for a compromise to keep a controversial proposal for mandatory sick days off the Nov. 4 ballot.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6e586141-7e6c-4567-989e-f370efd36fc5

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/30/gov_appeal_web.html

Nancy Pelosi turned down the lights and turned off the microphones. No need to talk about fixing the energy problems. No need to vote on something that most Americans want. No, it's better to take a 5 week vacation.

Pelosi shuts down house vote:
http://tntalk.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/pelosi-shuts-down-house-vote/
Did she do it to help Barack?
http://www.sodahead.com/question/126938/

There's no question that Nancy Pelosi is part of the problem. Not part of any solution. She has no interest in really helping Americans. She claimed to have a way to help solve our energy problems two years ago. Now, with control of Congress she allows gas prices to soar.

Even good news can't be good news. CNN now sports this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/oil.recession.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

Holy cow! We're now paying less for a gallon of gas. But really, it's bad news.

Maybe when Barack takes office, the clouds will glide away, the lion will lie down with the lamb, Iran will give us oil for free, and peace will settle upon all the lands.

The Democratic leadership, rather than work on our energy problems, decided to go on vacation early. After blocking the opportunity to even HAVE a vote on some ideas, they decided to take a five week vacation.

It's no wonder our Congress' favorability rating has dropped to it's lowest point now that the Democrats have taken charge.

According to Obama's campaign:
Obama last month said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point."
And now today:
Obama's campaign said Monday that Obama is going to ask that the strategic petroleum reserves be tapped. He's expected to ask for a "swap" of light crude for heavy crude with the heavy crude to be "replaced at a later date so that we can get oil into the market," the campaign said on a conference call.
Here's his quote from last month:
"I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency," he said on July 7.
So, my question is, what "Genuine Emergency" occured between July 7th and today? I've checked the major news outlets. Can't seem to find the "Genuine Emergency".

In 2000, the World Health Organization published a report ranking the 191 member nations using five performance indicators. In the report, the United States ranked 37th. Many proponents of having our government take over our health care system have cited this report (and our bad ranking) as a strong reason for their argument.
I wondered why we ranked so low. So I began to look at how the WHO measured health care systems.
Performance Indicator 1: Responsiveness. This looked at the availability of resources; speed of response to problems. It also includes respect for persons and the quality of the care. The United States ranked first.
Performance Indicator 2: Fairness of financial contribution. "Fairness" as defined by WHO refers to the amount of money spent on health care by a household after food expenditures are removed from income. This computation greatly assists nations where health care is very poor, and not surprisingly, has a low health care cost. It also greatly hinders nations with very good health care that, again not surprisingly, costs more. Based on the computation, the United States ranks 54-55. What this indicator completely misses is the fact that nations providing higher health care services (like cutting edge cancer-fighting programs) are penalized because these services are at a higher expense. The calculation fails to compare apples to apples. If a country simple fails to provide a high cost service, their 'cost' to their citizens is lower - but their citizens can't get the service. That's hardly a good option.
Performance Indicator 3: Overall Level of Health. This ranks countries based measuring the disability-adjusted life expectancy. I couldn't find the exact US ranking, but I believe it was 24th. Life expectancy does have a relationship with the health of a nation. But it is, at best, only loosely related to the health care provided by a nation. We in the US know that fast food, high-fat foods, lack of exercise, poor diets, etc. are bad for us. But that doesn't stop us from choosing to eat at McDonald's; choosing to play the wii instead of taking a walk. Our life expectancy may rank behind 23 other nations, but it's not due to having a poor health system. It's primarily due to our choice to live the way we live.
Performance Indicator 4: Distribution of Health in the Populations. This measures the overall health care available to the highest and lowest within a population. This is about the worst measurement factor I have seen. It sounds good. But it is very flawed. What this indicator says, is that if in one country people are universally getting terrible health care, that is better than a country that gives half the population average health care, and the other half very good health care. What? Really, can it get any more socialist than that? If everybody gets the same that is better than if there's a range of health care available. For the US, we would do better in this measurement if we got rid of our high-end health care options. According to the WHO, if we reduce our health care benefits, our ranking would be better. Yeah, that makes sense.
Performance Indicator 5: Distribution of Financing. This one was harder to understand. From my reading of it, the measurement is based on the amount of money (per capita) spent by the government on the health system. Of course, countries where medicine is socialized, there is a much higher amount spent than a free market system. So obviously the US would rank much lower.
My conclusion: Countries with socialized health systems are destined to rank high using these indicators. It's built in to the WHO's ranking system. It's as if they built the study based on the preference for socialized medicine. This system of ranking countries is poor at best. The WHO created a premise full of faults and have used it in an attempt to legitimize socialized medicine.
Don't fall for the hype. The United States provides one of the best health care systems in the world.

It's not enough to just vote against drilling, the democratic leaders are blocking any attempts to even hold a vote.

http://monkeycrash.com/2008/06/25/democrats-block-republican-attempts-to-drill-offshore/

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/2008-presidential-election/TSRQD46UAMC73EOTS

The great inaction of Pelosi. Two years ago Ms. Pelosi claimed to have an energy plan. All we needed to do was vote for Democrats to control congress. Well, they have control. Where's the plan?

(yes, the sound a pin dropping)