Corwin Amber's Blog

Credit Union lending

Corwin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:59:51 EDT

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

Democrats work 'with' the President

Corwin — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:25:31 EDT

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.

Finally, a Democrat that understands

Corwin — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:02:31 EDT

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

Ineffective Congress - Lead by do-nothing Democrats

Corwin — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:23:44 EDT

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.

More doom and gloom

Corwin — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:24:46 EDT

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.

Congressional Avoidance

Corwin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:54:19 EDT

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.

Where's the Geniune Emergency?

Corwin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:13 EDT

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".

Health Insurance vs Health Care

Corwin — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:34:26 EDT

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.

Democratic Leadership block vote

Corwin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:17:45 EDT

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)

NASA kicks off a new project seeking intelligent life

Corwin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:32:44 EDT

Today NASA officials confirmed their newest mission set to take place this fall. In a mission that will be far less expensive than any previous mission in the past two decades, NASA plans to transport the lunar lander to the floor of the United States Senate.
"We believe that intelligent life once existed in this building. We're confident our mission will succeed in uncovering the truth once and for all." NASA spokesman Neal Legstrong went on to admit this mission was initiated under increasing public pressure. "Yes, we are aware of the fears that a Black Hole will be discovered. And there is some amount of risk to the vehicle. But that's exactly why we send unmanned equipment in these situations."
NASA also confirmed that the Hubble Space Telescope was unable to return any discernable photographs of the area in question due to a "large amount of interference" in the atmosphere.
NASA declined Congressional funding of the project earlier in the year.
"When it was all said and done, the add-ons to the original bill exceeded our entire budget for last year. If we were to have gone that route, our mission would have included building a new bridge from Cape Canaveral to New York City as well as a new turnpike back to Washington. In addition, we would have had to convert the truck [delivering the lander] to a solar-powered electric engine."
An official requesting anonymity corroborated earlier reports of lavish parties for high-ranking NASA personnel and "Nice, new cars suddenly appearing" in the main parking lot.
The exact "launch date" has not been set. But NASA does plan to use their standard count down sequence, despite the fact their only using a standard Roadway trailer to carry the lander north.

Senator's letter sparked a bank panic

Corwin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:20:10 EDT

Here's what happens when a Senator doesn't stop to think before he makes something public:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/EDIT01/807230381/1019/EDIT

Seven Sick Days

Corwin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:11:10 EDT

I wonder; if this becomes law, what else could we impose on businesses? Why not make it mandatory for businesses to continue paying employees for at least six weeks after closing or moving their office? That should give ample time for employees losing their jobs to find new ones. How about requiring businesses to have a low-cost food service on the premises so that employees would have easy access to food? This would lower gasoline usage and, perhaps eliminate extended lunches. Perhaps we should require businesses to have a room available for employees experiencing an elevated level of stress? Nearly all of us get unhinged now and then. It’s unhealthful and reduces our productivity. A nice, calming room where we can unwind and collect ourselves would lead to a healthier, more productive employee. Nearly all businesses have microwave ovens, toasters, coffee makers and ice making machines. So why not make it required of all businesses?

I bet you can come up with dozens of other ideas. I’ve actually worked for companies that have provided each of these – at one time or another. But each company did so as a way to attract employees. In the free market economy that we (currently) live in, it’s benefits such as these that entice potential employees to such companies.

So why don’t all companies provide all the same benefits? There are many reasons.

Cost, of course, is usually the biggest restricting factor.

Requiring businesses to provide sick days for employees sounds like a good idea too. Who wouldn’t want a guarantee of seven paid days in case you or someone you cared for was sick? But what are the costs? Would a business be affected by paying each of its employees to not work seven days a year? Seriously, how can a company afford that cost?
Like everything else in business, there are only a few choices:

1. Reduce other costs, such as employee compensation.
2. Increase revenue by increasing prices on goods and services to customers.
3. Accept smaller profits (or increased losses).
4. Break the law.
5. Close the business.
6. Move the business to a region where the requirement is not mandated.

Personally, I’d like my company to stay in business and continue to pay me the same salary. If this becomes law, one or more of those choices will have to be chosen by the owners of the company. There’s no way around it. Interestingly, my company already provides me with plenty of PTO time. I can use it as vacation or sick time. But under this new bill, 7 additional ‘Sick Day’ days will have to be included.

In a state that is losing jobs weekly, as businesses are forced to close or are leaving because of the higher costs to do business here, this bill seems like a very, very bad idea. It may sound nice – eliminating the choice between a paycheck or staying home sick – but the cost to doing business in Ohio is already steeper than most states. And Ohio ranks very high in tax costs. Many businesses have already chosen to leave because of the higher costs; we can’t afford to push more out of the state.