FeudArt

“Philippines to leapfrog to be 16th largest economy by 2050″

rbvergara — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:02:51 +0000

By: Michelle V. Remo
Philippine Daily Inquirer

2:12 am | Friday, January 13th, 2012

29 share659 570

The Philippines and Peru are among emerging economies that would become much more prominent in the next few decades, helped by demographics and rising education standards, with the Philippines set to leapfrog 27 places to become the 16th largest economy by 2050, according to a prediction of international bank HSBC.

The bank expected China to overtake the United States as the world’s biggest economy by 2050, and said strong growth rates in other developing countries would help drive the global economy.

“Plenty of places in the world look set to deliver very strong rates of growth. But they are not in the developed world, which faces both structural and cyclical head winds. They are in the emerging world,” the bank said in a report “The World in 2050.”

HSBC based its forecasts on fundamentals such as current income per capita, rule of law, democracy, education levels and demographic change.

The bank said the Philippines would become a “star performer” in terms of its economic leap in the global rankings.

HSBC said the Philippines was likely to post an average growth of 7 percent in the next 40 years.

Breaking down the average growth forecast, the bank said the country would likely grow by 8.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, by 7.3 percent from 2020 to 2030, and by 6.6 percent from 2030 to 2040, and by

5.8 percent from 2040 to 2050.

It said the advantage of the Philippines was its favorable macroeconomic fundamentals and improving governance.

Economic officials of the government often harp on what they call the country’s positive macroeconomic fundamentals that include stable inflation, sustained growth over the years (it grew even when the global economy shrank in 2009), stable banking and financial system, and improving fiscal position.

Growing population a plus

HSBC said the Philippines was also put at an advantageous position by its growing population, which, if properly educated and trained, should help the economy generate more income over the next decades.

The fact that the Philippines has relatively low income gives it much room for growth, and that its favorable fundamentals will help the country maximize that room, the bank said.

“The most potent recipe for growth is a country that scores highly on the fundamentals discussed but currently has low income per capita. These economies should deliver the highest growth in income per capita as they ‘catch up’ with those with similar fundamentals,” HSBC said.

Top 20

According to HSBC’s forecast, the Top 20 largest economies by 2050 will be China, United States, India, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, France, Canada, Italy, Turkey, South Korea, Spain, Russia, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Argentina and Egypt.

The Philippines’ 16th rank by 2050 in terms of economic size marks a 27-notch improvement from its performance in 2010, said HSBC.

The bank thus said that the Philippines was expected to post the biggest leap in terms of economic ranking over the next four decades. “The Philippines looks set for a multidecade run of strong growth.”

HSBC said Peru should average annual growth of 5.5 percent over the same period.

The sheer pace of population growth in countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan means that these economies will swell in size to be included among the 100 biggest economies even if their incomes on a per-capita basis remain low.

HSBC said lower scores for rule of law in Latin America constrained its per capita income projections for the region though it noted that Brazil was making headway in this aspect.

Losers

“The losers are the small population, aging economies of Europe,” added the bank, which said the demographics in much of Europe underscored concerns about the debt problems faced by many of the continent’s governments.

If sufficiently open to modern technology, developing countries could enjoy many years of robust GDP growth although they could struggle for growth drivers once they have adapted to technological advances,

HSBC said.

“The initial years of development could be described as ‘copy-and-paste’ growth, as countries open themselves up and adapt to the world’s existing technologies. Once the ‘copy-and-paste’ growth is complete … many economies struggle and get stuck in what is often known as the middle-income trap.”

“But many of the countries we are considering are still at such an extremely low level of development that there are years of this ‘copy-and-paste’ growth ahead,” it added.

China

It was here that many of the pessimism about China was misplaced, the bank argued.

“One of the most commonly cited reasons for concern about China is the high rate of investment as a percentage of GDP … (But) we believe the strong rate of investment is entirely justified—providing China with much needed basic infrastructure,” it said.

The bank said high levels of education in Central and Eastern Europe meant that the regions could enjoy strong income per capita growth in the coming years before weak demographics eventually sap economic growth.

“While education rates are similar (to the West), the average income per capita in the central and eastern Europe block is just one fifth that of the developed world. For this reason … economies have great scope to catch up in income per capita,” HSBC said.

“Some of the smaller Eastern European countries—Romania, the Czech Republic and Serbia—(should) all do extremely well, particularly in the coming decade, before demographics prove to be more of a drag.” With a report from Reuters

Originally posted at 09:02 pm | Thursday, January 12, 2012

Source: http://business.inquirer.net/39327/philippines-seen-among-top-20-economies-in-next-4-decades

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, migrant labor, philippine development

The most special day of my life

rbvergara — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:40:51 +0000

In front of the cross at our church, I knelt down and put a ring on it! She said, “YES”!!!. 6pm, January 1, 2012.

Filed under: Uncategorized

VIDEO interview with Pres. Noynoy Aquino re: OFWs and jobs mismatch

rbvergara — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:12:23 +0000

Filed under: Uncategorized

End of the year poem

rbvergara — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:21:09 +0000

[This is dedicated to all the OFWs and other wandering souls searching for their place in the world. May you find your way back home safely this holiday season. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!]

Once again we reach the end of yet another year

of life pursued

of dreams caressed

that finding home is near;

Each moment spent thinking of you

joyfully reminiscing

was fuel for a soul that waits

that counts the days remaining

until the boy

now turned a man

treks back to Pilipinas

his home

his love

his life

his heart

his happiness awaiting…

to exhale

is the pay-off I’ve been eyeing

searching patiently for when

I, too,

can do what others routinely take for granted:

going home

being home

being whole among blood relatives;

Nothing against those who are fictive

I am not knocking the new bonds we create in order to survive

social support glitters like gold,

and like gold it is valuable;

But I need more

we all need more

of the soothing warmth of unconditional love;

Ultimately

true family is true love.

Blood is thicker than…

…water has kept our islands apart since time immemorial

but must it also keep our loved ones separated

across nations far flung?

Can we not imagine a better way to prosper together

under one roof?

From that bridge of hope we use to transport our love

across nations far flung

just to make ends meet back home

should always hang a banner,

“I heart an OFW!”

for an OFW is my father,

my mother,

my sister,

my brother

is my keeper

and their sacrifices keep us hewn together.

It is beyond belief that their humble human labor

does prop up the economy of one nation divided.

Once a year we remember them

we honor them with the gaudy colors of gratitude shaded with guilt

when perhaps all we need to do

is to say simply with a deep embrace

“It is OK to stay home.”

~ R. Bong Vergara, 12/23/2011

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, migrant labor, OFW, philippine development, politics, us philippine relations

Patriotic food for thought

rbvergara — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:51:06 +0000

As we approach Pilipino American History Month in October it is appropriate to honor symbols of our roots. Thus, the Philippine national motto:

Maka-Diyos, Maka-Tao, Makakalikasan, at Makabansa (For the Love of God, People, Nature and Country)

The National Motto of the Philippines is set in law. It is contained in the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines (R.A. 8491). The spirit of this motto is reflected in the national anthem, as well,

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, filipino american history month

DALAI LAMA: A meaningful life

rbvergara — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:31:49 +0000

Filed under: fatherhood, filipino, filipino american

NY Times Opinionator: The Meaningfulness of Lives

rbvergara — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:22:50 +0000

The Meaningfulness of Lives

By TODD MAY

Who among us has not asked whether his or her life is a meaningful one? Who has not wondered — on a sleepless night, during a long stretch of dull or taxing work, or when a troubled child seems a greater burden than one can bear — whether in the end it all adds up to anything? On this day, too, when many are steeped in painful reminders of personal loss, it is natural to wonder about the answers. A meaningful life is distinct from a happy life or a morally good one.

.

The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre thought that, without God, our lives are bereft of meaning. He tells us in his essay “Existentialism,” “if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us.” On this view, God gives our lives the values upon which meaning rests. And if God does not exist, as Sartre claims, our lives can have only the meaning we confer upon them.

This seems wrong on two counts. First, why would the existence of God guarantee the meaningfulness of each of our lives? Is a life of unremitting drudgery or unrequited struggle really redeemed if there’s a larger plan, one to which we have no access, into which it fits? That would be small compensation for a life that would otherwise feel like a waste — a point not lost on thinkers like Karl Marx, who called religion the “opium of the people.” Moreover, does God actually ground the values by which we live? Do we not, as Plato recognized 2500 years ago, already have to think of those values as good in order to ascribe them to God?

Second, and more pointedly, must the meaningfulness of our lives depend on the existence of God? Must meaning rely upon articles of faith? Basing life’s meaningfulness on the existence of a deity not only leaves all atheists out of the picture; it leaves different believers out of one another’s picture. What seems called for is an approach to thinking about meaning that can draw us together, one that exists alongside or instead of religious views.

A promising and more inclusive approach is offered by Susan Wolf in her recent and compelling book, “Meaning in Life and Why It Matters.” A meaningful life, she claims, is distinct from a happy life or a morally good one. In her view, “meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness.” A meaningful life must, in some sense then, feel worthwhile. The person living the life must be engaged by it. A life of commitment to causes that are generally defined as worthy — like feeding and clothing the poor or ministering to the ill — but that do not move the person participating in them will lack meaningfulness in this sense. However, for a life to be meaningful, it must also be worthwhile. Engagement in a life of tiddlywinks does not rise to the level of a meaningful life, no matter how gripped one might be by the game.

Leif Parsons

Often one defends an idea by giving reasons for it. However, sometimes the best defense is not to give reasons at the outset but instead to pursue the idea in order to see where it leads. Does it capture something important if we utilize it to understand ourselves? It’s this latter tack that I would like to try here. The pursuit of this core idea — that a meaningful life is both valued and valuable — allows us to understand several important aspects of our attitudes toward ourselves and others.

In this pursuit, the first step we might take beyond what Wolf tells us is to recognize that lives unfold over time. A life is not an unrelated series of actions or projects or states of being. A life has, we might say, a trajectory. It is lived in a temporal thickness. Even if my life’s trajectory seems disjointed or to lack continuity, it is my life that is disconnected in its unfolding, not elements of several different lives.

If a life has a trajectory, then it can be conceived narratively. A human life can be seen as a story, or as a series of stories that are more or less related. This does not mean that the person whose life it is must conceive it or live it narratively. I needn’t say to myself, “Here’s the story I want construct,” or, “This is the story so far.” What it means rather is that, if one reflected on one’s life, one could reasonably see it in terms of various story lines, whether parallel or intersecting or distinct. This idea can be traced back to Aristotle’s “Ethics,” but has made a reappearance with some recent narrative conceptions of what a self is.

What makes a trajectory a meaningful one? If Wolf is right, it has to feel worthwhile and, beyond that, has to be engaged in projects that are objectively worthwhile. There is not much difficulty in knowing what feels worthwhile. Most of us are good at sensing when we’re onto something and when we’re not. Objective worthiness is more elusive. We don’t want to reduce it simply to a morally good life, as though a meaningful life were simply an unalienated moral life. Meaningful lives are not so limited and, as we shall see, are sometimes more vexed. So we must ask what lends objective worthiness to a life outside the moral realm. Here is where the narrative character of a life comes into play. What is the point of understanding what makes lives meaningful? Why not just live them?

.

There are values we associate with a good narrative and its characters that are distinct from those we associate with good morals. A fictional character can be intense, adventurous, steadfast or subtle. Think here of the adventurousness of Ishmael in “Moby-Dick,” the quiet intensity of Kip in “The English Patient,” the steadfastness of Dilsey in “The Sound and the Fury” or the subtlety of Marco Polo in “Invisible Cities.” As with these fictional characters, so with our lives. When a life embodies one or more of these values (or others), and feels engaging to the one who lives it, it is to that extent meaningful. There are narrative values expressed by human lives that are not reducible to moral values. Nor are they reducible to happiness; they are not simply matters of subjective feeling. Narrative values are not felt, they are lived. And they constitute their own arena of value, one that has not been generally recognized by philosophers who reflect on life’s meaningfulness.

An intense life, for instance, can be lived with abandon. One might move from engagement to engagement, or stick with a single engagement, but always (well, often) by diving into it, holding nothing back. One throws oneself into swimming or poetry or community organizing or fundraising, or perhaps all of them at one time or another. Such a life is likely a meaningful one. And this is true even where it might not be an entirely moral one.

We know of people like this, people whose intensity leads them to behavior that we might call morally compromised. Intense lovers can leave bodies in their wake when the embers of love begin to cool. Intense athletes may not be the best of teammates. Our attitudes toward people like this are conflicted. There is a sense in which we might admire them and another sense in which we don’t. This is because meaningful lives don’t always coincide with good ones. Meaningful lives can be morally compromised, just as morally good lives can feel meaningless to those who live them.

We should not take this to imply that there is no relationship between meaningfulness and morality. They meet at certain moral limits. An evil life, no matter how intense or steadfast, is not one we would want to call meaningful. But within the parameters of those moral limits, the relationship between a meaningful life and a moral one is complicated. They do not map directly onto each other.

Why might all this matter? What is the point of understanding what makes lives meaningful? Why not just live them? On one level, the answer is obvious. If we want to live meaningful lives, we might want to know something about what makes a life so. Otherwise, we’re just taking stabs in the dark. And in any event, for most of us it’s just part of who we are. It’s one of the causes of our lying awake at night.

There is another reason as well. This one is more bound to the time in which we live. In an earlier column for The Stone, I wrote that we are currently encouraged to think of ourselves either as consumers or as entrepreneurs. We are told to be shoppers for goods or investors for return. Neither of these types of lives, if they are the dominant character of those lives, strike me as particularly meaningful. This is because their narrative themes — buying, investing — are rarely the stuff of which a compelling life narrative is made. (I say “rarely” because there may be, for example, cases of intensely lived but morally compromised lives of investment that do not cross any moral limit to meaningfulness.) They usually lack what Wolf calls “objective attractiveness.” To be sure, we must buy things, and may even enjoy shopping. And we should not be entirely unconcerned with where we place our limited energies or monies. But are these the themes of a meaningful life? Are we likely to say of someone that he or she was a great networker or shopper, and so really knew how to live?

In what I have called an age of economics, it is even more urgent to ask the question of a meaningful life: what it consists in, how we might live one. Philosophy cannot prescribe the particular character of meaning that each of us should embrace. It cannot tell each of us individually how we might trace the trajectory that is allotted to us. But it can, and ought to, reflect upon the framework within which we consider these questions, and in doing so perhaps offer a lucidity we might otherwise lack. This is as it should be. Philosophy can assist us in understanding how we might think about our lives, while remaining modest enough to leave the living of them to us.

SOURCE: The New York Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-meaningfulness-of-lives/?hp

Filed under: fatherhood, filipino, filipino american

San Francisco Pistahan Parade and Fair, Saturday, August 13

rbvergara — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:06:13 +0000

Hello everyone.

Excited to see you all tomorrow at the San Francisco Pistahan Parade and fair. Appreciate if you would share with all your family and friends the ff info:

PISTAHAN PARADE

1. Assembly at Beale and Market Streets – 9-9:30AM

Look for the Philippine Consulate float (with coconut tree), which will be the first float in the parade line up. The SAVE Act convertible will follow.

The SAVE Act car will easily be identifiable as it will have banners on each side of the car with the message : “Write U.S. Congress to Pass SAVE Act. www.saveourindustriesact.org“.

Pls note that photo op will be at 10:30AM, when all the floats and cars have been fully decorated and lined up. The parade will start at 11AM. My previous experience is that the kickoff program and parade start on time.

2. Uniform t-shirts

Option 1: tri-color red-white-blue collared t-shirt with Philippine archipelago embroidery on the left breast

Option 2: any plain red, white or blue t-shirt

.
3. Flyer distribution

We have 2,000 colored SAVE Act flyers to distribute during the parade. These will be given along with Boy Bawang snack packs (donated by industry friends) and the Philippine Consulate message on green living. Colorfully-dressed members of the Mabuhay Folkloric Society Dancers will walk with the SAVE car to help distribute flyers to the street audience.

PISTAHAN TRADE FAIR – PHILIPPINE CONSULATE BOOTH – H25

4. Pls find booth H25 at the Yerba Buena Gardens where SAVE Act petition letters, Consular and tourism materials will be available. Let your friends know that each person who signs a SAVE Act petition letter at the booth will receive a snack pack donated by our friends from the Bay Area food industry. As with previous Pistahan editions, more than 30,000 visitors are expected to this two-day weekend event.

This should be fun! See you tomorrow.

Jopin

–
Josephine Romero
Trade Commissioner
Philippine Trade and Investment Center - Silicon Valley
Consulate General of the Philippines

Filed under: filipino, filipino american

Practical way to help out with SAVE Act campaign

rbvergara — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:19:34 +0000

Hello Friends.

Appreciate if you would advise as many of our kababayans as we know to ask their Senators and Congress Representatives to support SAVE Act (S. 2387 / H.R. 1244) by going to www.saveourindustriesact.org . and clicking on the “Write Your Representatives” tab to access the automated petition letter.

Estimated time to sign up and send the online petition letter is about 3 minutes.

Pls try it now. It’s that easy! You will receive a copy in your email.

Thank you!

Josephine Romero
Trade Commissioner
Philippine Trade and Investment Center - Silicon Valley
Consulate General of the Philippines

–
Support the SAVE Our Industries Act!
Web: www.saveourindustriesact.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/SaveAct
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/saveact

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, manny pacquiao, philippine development, politics, SAVE Act, us philippine relations

The SAVE Act: “Free trade among free people”

rbvergara — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:30:46 +0000

By THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO

VISITING US solons expressed their support for the SAVE Act now pending before the US Congress during a dinner hosted by the Philippines-United States Business Council.

DTI Undersecretary Cristino L. Panlilio took the occasion to appeal to the visiting legislators as he cited the long historic ties between the Philippines and United States and the mutual benefits that can be derived by both the American textile industry and Philippine garment manufacturers in the form of jobs.

A landmark piece of legislation, the SAVE Act hopes to revive the Philippines’ garment industry that has been in the doldrums ever since the end of the quota regime at the same time increase exports of US textiles to the Philippines and other ASEAN countries of up to $500 million dollars. The end result will definitely redound to great benefits for both the Philippines and American people. A win-win solution to what was once a losing proposition.

Panlilio lamented that while we share a history with the United States dating back to World War II, no bilateral trade agreement has been passed to expand trade between the Philippines and the United States.

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California committed to push for the bill once reintroduced in the US Congress and enjoined his fellow congressmen to do the same.

“Free trade should be encouraged among free people,” Rohrabacher said. The Philippines is a democracy. We should allow further trade to prosper, he added.

Rohrabacher who chairs the powerful Committee on Foreign-Relations also headed the US Congressional delegation which included Democrats Russ Carnahan of Missouri, Jim Costa of California, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Republicans Louie Gohmert and Ted Poe, both from Texas.

Another comment heard from one concerned congressman cited the country’s competitive advantage in English as going down and urged that something be done about it.

“You’re losing it. Your English proficiency advantage is slowly being eroded and may soon disappear if not addressed,” he added. Quite so. If only for this, I find some wisdom in the K-12 project of the DepEd. But more important, I think there is a need to improve the quality of our teachers some of whom cannot even speak straight English themselves.

Aside from the SAVE Act and english proficiency, the American legislators, accompanied by senior staff of the US House of Representatives and US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas also asked about security issues especially in Mindanao, the Spratlys, and money laundering activities by international banks.

Philippines – United States Business Council Chairman Ramon del Rosario, Jr. led representatives of the business community and former government officials which included former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo, former Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz, former Trade Secretary Rizalino Navarro and former Senator Richard Gordon, who is a good friend of Congressman Rohrabacher.

Guangzhou delegation
Also recent visitors in the country were officials and businessmen from Guangzhou for the Manila— Guangzhou Trade and Investment Conference organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the China Council for the Promotion of Trade (CCPIT) Guangzhou Sub – council in cooperation with the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The 146 – man delegation came to explore and forge business ventures in the areas of distributorship, export-import and investments in automobile, food, hotel supplies, garments, wines and liquor among other things.

As to garments, the SAVE Act model is one that may be explored to expand trade with China. Textiles made in China may be exported to the Philippines to be cut and sewn by our garments manufacturers and then re-exported to China duty free. With labor costs in China going up and with the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement in place, this may be a viable option to revive the garments industry in the Philippines.

SOURCE: Manila Times Online, http://www.manilatimes.net/opinion/%E2%80%9Cfree-trade-among-free-people%E2%80%9D/

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, SAVE Act

SAVE Act advocacy campaign gets second wind

rbvergara — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:31:16 +0000

Press Release

SAVE ACT Campaign Relaunched in the Midwest

Fil-Am Community Commits Strong Support

Roll-out Next in Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana and Ohio

(27 May 2011, Chicago)

The campaign for the passage of the SAVE ACT was relaunched in Chicago and the Midwest at the Philippine Consulate General in Chicago last 26 May 2011.

In his video message, Ambassador Jose Cuisia called on the support of the Fil-Am Community in working together with the rest of the Fil-Am Communities in the US for the passage of the SAVE Act and for strengthening bilateral relations with the US.

Ambassador Cuisia highlighted the critical importance of the campaign in the Midwest as the leaders of the Senate and House and many members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees are from the Midwest.

Filipino-American Community leaders representing a broad range of organizations as well as private individuals attended the event.

Also present was Magid Glove Safety Manufacturing, a Chicago-based company which manufactures industrial gloves and clothing in the Philippines since 1974. It currently has 300 workers in its factory in Cavite.

Consul-General Leo Herrera-Lim and Trade Representative Glenn Penaranda expressed appreciation for the strong support of the Filipino-American Community in the SAVE ACT Campaign starting last year. They acknowledged the many organizations and private individuals who wrote or called on their respective legislators.

The re-launching event was graced by the presence of former President Fidel Ramos who also called on the Fil-Am Community to continue supporting economic development in the Philippines.

Supporters of the SAVE Act Campaign in the Midwest already include the major Fil-Am organizations and many private individuals.

The SAVE Act Campaign will roll-out in the following states and cities in the coming weeks:

Nebraska (Omaha at the Independence Day Picnic)
Michigan (Warren at the Kalayaan Picnic Celebration)
Wisconsin (Milwaukee at the Independence Day Picnic)
Kansas (Kansas City at the Fiesta Filipina)
Indiana (Indianapolis at the Independence Day Fiesta)
Ohio (Cincinnati at the Consular Outreach and Dayton at the Annual Family Fiesta)

For more information on the SAVE Act Campaign in the Midwest, please contact :

Philippine Trade & Investment Center – Midwest

(T: 312.345.9030 E-mail: ptic-ch@sbcglobal.net)

Supporters for the SAVE ACT Campaign (Initial List)

Associations / Organizations

National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA)

- NaFFAA National (Ed Navarra)

- NaFFAA Region 3 (Emraida Kiram)

- NaFFAA-Illinois (Jelly Carandang)

- NaFFAA-Iowa (Roel Campos)

- NaFFAA-Michigan (Willie Dechavez)

Association of Certified Home Healthcare Agencies in IL

Barangay Club of Indiana

Cagayan Valley Circle in Chicago and Midwest

Chicago Koneks

Elston Avenue United Methodist Church

FEU Medical Alumni Association of Northern Illinois

Filipino American Association of Iowa (Alma Reed)

Filipino-American Organization of Metro Omaha (Daryl Rose)

Filipino-American Association of Greater Baton Rouge (Val Suico)

Filipino-Americans of New Orleans

Filipino-American Historical Society of Chicago

Filipino-American National Historical Society (Midwest Chapter)

Filipino-American National Historical Society (Wisconsin Chapter)

Filipino-Americans of Skokie

Kayumanggi Network

Midwest Therapy Network

National Press Club of the Philippines – USA

Philippine American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Chicago

Philippine Chamber of Commerce-Michigan

Philippine Certified Public Accountants of Greater Chicago

Siliman Alumni International – Chicago Chapter

University of the Philippines Alumni Association of Greater Chicago

Word of Grace Family Christian Fellowship

Companies & Private Individuals

Dejurs Enterprises

EC Ortiz & Company LLC

Mariano Santos Group of Companies

Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Company

Oremor International and Robert Romero

Orient Star Shipping Incorprated – IL

Toti and Josefina Wee Sit

Fil-Am Media in Chicago

Asian-American Tribune

Filipino-American Community Builder

Fil-Am Weekly Mega Scene

One Philippines

Philippine Weekly

Pinoy Monthly

Via Times

Joseph Lariosa

Filed under: filipino, filipino american

Religion and modern life

rbvergara — Wed, 04 May 2011 21:23:13 +0000

Filed under: fatherhood, filipino, filipino american, manhood, philippine development, politics

Life is lived forward

rbvergara — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:45:57 +0000

“Life is lived forward” is not just a positive-thinker’s mantra, or a spiritual refrain, it is a fitting rule-of-the-road in these times of great and unusual challenges.

The past three years have been stressful, with the stress of daily work aggravated by that of ‘not-knowing’ and ‘having-doubts- about-tomorrow’. The existential angst is palpable.

The frustration that is out there, the despair that gnaws at the spirit but hides from view — these prey on the young and those already dealing with heavier burden. Because I’d like to imagine that others are going through a similar bout with introspection, and self-evaluation, I have some thoughts to share that may help.

Some say that this generation is likely the first that will have a future less bright than the one immediately previous. Signs abound that they may be right on.

But because I am a social worker, I don’t try to focus on things that economists and demographers are better able to understand; instead, I focus on quality of life.

Everything we all believed we could get if we only followed the formula of academic performance and educational attainment just got a lot harder to get; and perhaps for some, it has become out of reach.

A decent house, a green car, a high-paying career, a healthy family with all its needs met — these are, for many, dreams that serve only to remind us how long the journey remains out of our one-bedroom apartment, used car, low-wage job, and a young adult life in relative isolation, away from the peering eyes of friends who either judge or are more fortunate to be from wealthy families.

Yet, life must be lived forward, and to do this you must not lose hope. It truly is a jungle out there, and you must not give yourself permission to be a helpless prey.

“In this game,” Micky Ward, the boxer-fighter, once said, “you cannot give up.”

If beaten, bruised or broken, don’t give up; as you stand back up, you will discover who you truly are, what you truly value.

If it seems you are being pulled back, do not despair; like a rubber sling, you are being prepared to be propelled forward.

If you have fallen, do not faint in your mind; you will bounce back to a level higher than you had previously reached.

Aside from positive self-talk, find this time of transition as an opportunity to engineer a stronger version of yourself — one more resilient, more tough-minded, more able to take the punches that inevitably come.

To those of you already doing this, reach out and teach others how one can live life forward. From my end, listen to the searching version of yourself. A big part of the healing and the answer lies in Him.

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, social anxiety, socioeconomic discontent, spiritual development

Fallen hero: Faustino “Mang Peping” Baclig, 1922-2011

rbvergara — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 05:01:26 +0000

Faustino “Peping” Baclig

Filipino World War II veteran, Bataan Survivor and

FASGI lifetime volunteer, passed away today, Sunday, February 27, 2011 @2:30am

Viewing

Friday, March 4, 2011, at Rose Hills Memorial Park & Mortuary

Skyrose Terrace

3888 S. Workman Mill Road

Whittier, CA

4:30-8:30pm

Funeral Service

Saturday, March 5, 2011, 11:00AM

Skyrose Chapel

Rose Hills Memorial Park and Mortuary

For more info, contact Filipino American Service Group Inc (FASGI) at 213-487-9804.

Filed under: filipino, filipino american

Faith and fatherhood: A Valentine’s Day reflection

rbvergara — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:05:34 +0000

There are different types of Dads out there: with kids, without kids, even those still preparing to be a dad someday soon. Like you, I am in search of my personal definition for fatherhood. It was July 2007 when my father passed away, a period in my life that my rational mind figured would be a finite experience, bound by a start and an end. But that has not been the case.

I still grieve for my late father, and I actually no longer find the possibility of not grieving his death a desirable resolution of my grief. While the grief has grown more measured over time, I realize now that it has no end.

The resolution of grief has little to do with letting go; instead, it has everything to do with keeping the memory of your loved one alive in a way that is less painful and more loving throughout your life.

Faith reveals itself an easy companion when resolving grief; it reminds us how we are not alone, even as we go through what may seem as unique experiences. Faith also reveals the strength we gain by believing in Him. It is a strength that reinforces not only our character, our ability to commit to core principles, but also our ability to better understand and give love.

On this Valentine’s Day, as I remember my own father and how mightily he loved, enough to brave these different shores, may you find a deeper sense of what fatherhood means for you, and what true love means, as well.

Filed under: fatherhood, manhood

A future that “works”

rbvergara — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:32:05 +0000

Happy New Year, first of all, and belated Merry Christmas.

As optimism creeps back into our lives, I think you would all agree when I say 2011 is a welcome year. From a President Noynoy Aquino beginning to live up to the symbol behind his name, to a President Obama reclaiming for us the hope we jointly lost, the world finally turns in a normal speed, once more.

Needless to say, we can’t stop doing everything we can to do just a little bit more. We are not out of woods just yet. That extra gig will continue to be necessary, either to make ends meet, or to have health insurance. So will that pursuit of a higher, more advanced degree become even more necessary to remain relevant and competitive.

Yet, as we welcome some degree of the normality we lost, we cannot avoid how our life has been dramatically transformed.

As we learn to accept and live with the irony of a life more basic in the 21^st century, may we also make our good potential more manifest. Optimism and despair, while these sit apart in extreme tension, are not contradictory; they are functional. Taken together, they sharpen us with the pressure they build; they take us out of our comfort zone, stir us anew from our old ways, so that we may be more and do more. After all, along with the need for a job is also a more fundamental need for a future that works, something which only deliberate action today can deliver.

Let us be even more brave, more forward thinking, more refined in 2011. Go out there and seize, not wait for, your second wind.

Filed under: filipino, filipino american

VIDEO: PACQUIAO fights for U.S. textile and Philippine apparel workers

rbvergara — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:13:46 +0000

S. 3170/H.R. 3039, the SAVE Our Industries Act, introduced on March 25, 2010 by Senators Daniel Inouye and Christopher Bond and on June 25, 2009 by Congressman Jim McDermott and Brian Bilbray, help revitalize the United States textile and Philippine apparel industries.

Initial estimates from industry groups such as the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) and the Confederation of Garment Exporters of the Philippines (CONGEP) indicate that this legislation will:

Save and create thousands of jobs in the US textile manufacturing and Philippine apparel sewing industries
Provide for the first time a meaningful opportunity for US textile manufacturers to export fabrics to Asia
Increase the number of export-related jobs in the U.S. textile industry by some five percent, and lead up to $500 million in new U.S. textile exports.

Built on strong and long-standing historical security ties and political relations, the SAVE Act is win-win legislation that would be the first significant Philippine-US economic cooperation initiative in decades.

Please write your Senators and U.S. Representatives to co-sponsor this important bill and help assure its enactment.

You can send letter online using template letters here.

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, manny pacquiao

Obama on Bush tax cuts: TRANSCRIPT of Dec 6 press conference

rbvergara — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:18:20 +0000

Transcript of Pres. Obama’s press conference on Dec 6, 2010 announcing compromise deal with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts temporary 2-year extension.

***

Good afternoon, everybody. Before I answer a few questions, I just wanted to say a few words about the agreement we’ve reached on tax cuts.

My number one priority is to do what’s right for the American people, for jobs, and for economic growth. I’m focused on making sure that tens of millions of hardworking Americans are not seeing their paychecks shrink on January 1st just because the folks here in Washington are busy trying to score political points.

And because of this agreement, middle-class Americans won’t see their taxes go up on January 1st, which is what I promised — a promise I made during the campaign, a promise I made as President.

Because of this agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table. And in exchange for a temporary extension of the high-income tax breaks — not a permanent but a temporary extension — a policy that I opposed but that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two years ago.

I’ll cite three of them. Number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to see tax breaks next year. Second, if you’re a small business looking to invest and grow, you’ll have a tax cut next year. Third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011, which will add about $1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family.

So this isn’t an abstract debate. This is real money for real people that will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. It will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. In other words, it’s a good deal for the American people.

Now, I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all Americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment insurance for those who are desperately looking for work.

And I understand the desire for a fight. I’m sympathetic to that. I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years. In the long run, we simply can’t afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.

So we’re going to keep on having this debate. We’re going to keep on having this battle. But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

A long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people. And my responsibility as President is to do what’s right for the American people. That’s a responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in this office.

So with that, let me take a couple of questions.

Ben Feller.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue — here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this — of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate — and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.

Q If I may follow up quickly, sir, you’re describing the situation you’re in right now. What about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? Was there a failure either on the part of the Democratic leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn’t preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is — seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so, unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election, to crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I think the Democrats have better ideas. I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don’t make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we’ve got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take. And the American people were persuaded by that.

But the fact of the matter is, I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party. I haven’t persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded John Boehner. And if I can’t persuade them, then I’ve got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs.

Julianna.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back in July, your budget office’s Mid-Session Review forecast that unemployment would be 7.7 percent in the second — in the fourth quarter of 2012. Will this package deal lower that projected rate? And also, is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your Recovery Act?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the Recovery Act was, but we’re in a different situation now. I mean, when the Recovery Act passed, we were looking at a potential Great Depression and we might have seen unemployment go up to 15 percent, 20 percent — we don’t know. In combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the Federal Reserve did, that’s behind us now. We don’t have the danger of a double-dip recession.

What we have is a situation in which the economy, although growing, although company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before I came into office and just as I was coming into office.

So what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than I think most economic forecasters had expected. And in fact, you’ve already seen some, just over the last 24 hours, suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. I think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. Unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace.

So, overall, every economist I’ve talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision.

Look, this is something that I think everybody has to remember, and I would speak especially to my fellow Democrats who I think rightly are passionate about middle-class families, working families, low-income families who are having the toughest time in this economy.

The single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy. The single most important anti-poverty program we can put in place is making sure folks have jobs and the economy is growing.

We can do a whole bunch of other stuff, but if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster than it’s currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many programs we put into place.

And that’s why, when I look at what our options were, for us to have another three, four, five months of uncertainty, not only would that have a direct impact on the people who see their paychecks get smaller, not only would that have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing.

Q Just to follow up. The unemployment rate was just north of 8 percent when the last Recovery Act was put in place. It’s now 9.8 percent. Are you prepared to say today that the unemployment rate is going to go down as a result of this package?

THE PRESIDENT: My expectation is that the unemployment rate is going to be going down because the economy is growing. And even though it’s growing more slowly that I’d like, it’s still growing.

Now, how fast it’s going to go down, how quickly the economy is going to grow, when are private sector businesses going to start making the investments in plant and equipment and actually start hiring people again? There are a lot of economists out there who have been struggling with that question.

So I’m not going to make a prediction. What I can say with confidence is that this package will help strengthen the economy — will help strengthen the recovery. That I’m confident about.

Chuck Todd.
Q Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats who say you’re rewarding Republican obstruction here? You yourself used in your opening statement they were unwilling to budge on this. A lot of progressive Democrats are saying they’re unwilling to budge, and you’re asking them to get off the fence and budge. Why should they be rewarding Republican obstruction?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me use a couple of analogies. I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

Again, this not an abstract political fight. This is not isolated here in Washington. There are people right now who, when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills. There are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they’ve got, and when that paycheck gets smaller on January 1st, they’re going to have to scramble to figure out, how am I going to pay all my bills? How am I going to keep on making the payments for my child’s college tuition? What am I going to do exactly?

Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently.

So I guess another way of thinking about it is that if — certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short-term things that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable. And the reason is, is because you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help to offset that.

The deal that we’ve struck here makes the high-end tax cuts temporary, and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the American people that are my number one concern.

Q If I may follow, aren’t you telegraphing, though, a negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year because they can just stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge — to use your words — and force you to capitulate?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. And the reason is because this is a very unique circumstance. This is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged, and at a time when the economy is just about to recover.

Now, keep in mind, I’ve just gone through two years, Chuck, where the rap on me was I was too stubborn and wasn’t willing to budge on a whole bunch of issues — including, by the way, health care where everybody here was writing about how, despite public opinion and despite this and despite that, somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through this thing.

Q Tell that to the left — they weren’t happy –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, but that’s my point. My point is I don’t make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. I make my judgments based on what I think is right for the country and for the American people right now.

And I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. But right now I want to make sure that the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight, and I think that this agreement accomplishes that.

And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit — all those things that are so important for so many families across the country — those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

And I’m happy to have that battle. I’m happy to have that conversation. I just want to make sure that the American people aren’t harmed while we’re having that broader argument.

Scott Horsley.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last week members of your administration were boasting that your willingness to walk away from the Korean negotiations led to a better deal. Can you explain how this is –

THE PRESIDENT: The difference is that if I didn’t get the Korea deal done on January 1st the taxes of middle-class America wouldn’t go up. It’s pretty straightforward. If we didn’t get the Korea deal done by January 1st, 2 million people weren’t suddenly looking at having no way to support their families.

And that’s why — this goes to Chuck’s question as well about what’s going to be different in the future. You’ve got a situation here that was urgent for millions of people. But as I recall, with the Korea free trade agreement, that was deemed by conventional wisdom as an example of us not getting something done. I remember a story above the fold on that. Then when we got it done with a better deal that has the endorsement of not only the U.S. auto companies but also of labor, the story was sort of below the fold. So I would just point that out. I think — I am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with Republicans.

Q Having bought that time now, do you hope to use this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And the answer is yes. Part of what I want to do is to essentially get the American people in a safe place so that we can then get the economy in a stable place. And then we’re going to have to have a broad-based discussion across the country about our priorities. And I started doing that yesterday down in North Carolina.

Here’s going to be the long-term issue. We’ve had two years of emergency — emergency economic action on the banking industry, the auto industry, on unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues — on state budgets. The situation has now stabilized, although for those folks who are out of work, it’s still an emergency. So we’ve still got to focus short term on job growth.

But we’ve got to have a larger debate about how is this — how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century? How are we going to make sure that we’ve got the best-trained workers in the world? There was just a study that came out today showing how we’ve slipped even further when it comes to math education and science education.

So what are we doing to revamp our schools to make sure our kids can compete? What are we doing in terms of research and development to make sure that innovation is still taking place here in the United States of America? What are we doing about our infrastructure so that we have the best airports and the best roads and the best bridges? And how are we going to pay for all that at a time when we’ve got both short-term deficit problems, medium-term deficit problems, and long-term deficit problems?

Now, that’s going to be a big debate. And it’s going to involve us sorting out what government functions are adding to our competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making sure that we’re growing the economy, and which aspects of the government aren’t helping.

And then we’ve got to figure out how do we pay for that. And that’s going to mean looking at the tax code and saying, what’s fair, what’s efficient. And I don’t think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient. But we’ve got to make sure that we don’t just paper over those problems by borrowing from China or Saudi Arabia. And so that’s going to be a major conversation.

And in that context, I don’t see how the Republicans win that argument. I don’t know how they’re going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when, to offset them, we’d end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.

But I’m happy to listen to their arguments. And I think the American people will benefit from that debate. And that’s going to be starting next year.

Marc Ambinder.
Q Mr. President, thank you. How do these negotiations affect negotiations or talks with Republicans about raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in. Was there ever any attempt by the White House to include raising the debt limit as a part of this package?

THE PRESIDENT: When you say it would seem they’ll have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?

Q Just in the sense that they’ll say essentially we’re not going to raise the — we’re not going to agree to it unless the White House is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that probably go deeper and further than what you’re willing to do. I mean, what leverage would you have –

THE PRESIDENT: Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.

And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars.

Jonathan Weisman, last question.

Q Some on the left have questioned — have looked at this deal and questioned what your core values are, what specifically you will go to the mat on. I’m wondering if you can reassure them with some specific things in saying, all right, this is where I don’t budge. And along those lines, what’s going to be different in 2012, when all these tax cuts again are up for expiration?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what’s going to be different in 2012 we’ve just discussed, which is we will have had two years to discuss the budget — not in the abstract, but in concrete terms. Over the last two years, the Republicans have had the benefit of watching us take all these emergency actions, having us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying, that’s their problem.

Well, over the next two years, they’re going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do. And I think it becomes pretty clear, after you go through the budget line by line, that if in fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that that’s a lot of money and that the cuts — corresponding cuts that would have to be made are very painful. So either they rethink their position, or I don’t think they’re going to do very well in 2012. So that’s on the first point.

With respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principles are –

Q Where is your line in the sand?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent — that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved — that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America. Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they’re just trying to figure out how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us. And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.

Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.

So my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there. What is helping the American people live out their lives? What is giving them more opportunity? What is growing the economy? What is making us more competitive? And at any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I am absolutely positive is right, I can’t get done.

And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I’m keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight — not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?

And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.

Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

And so the — to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game. And to my Republican friends, I would suggest — I think this is a good agreement, because I know that they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.

(Source: The White House)

Filed under: filipino, filipino american, obama

21st century enlightenment

rbvergara — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:32:47 +0000

Filed under: ethnic disparity, filipino, filipino american, john delloro

VIDEOS: HBO 24/7 Pacquiao vs Margarito

rbvergara — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:32:48 +0000

Episode 1, Part 1 (bad sound) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ec2m5LYoG4&feature=related

Episode 1, Part 2 (bad sound)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp3zBlR-P0E&feature=related

Episode 2, Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rximmP4slz8&feature=related

Episode 2, Part 2 (bad sound) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeXTKcixAiw&feature=related

Episode 3, Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=213ReJKbysc

Episode 3, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V884yQCoOs

Filed under: antonio margarito, boxing, filipino, filipino american, filipino martial art, manny pacquiao