Overacting

(Yesterday’s column)

A decade and a half or so ago, whenever prices of fuel and consumer goods started rising at alarming levels, people used to joke that “Si Nora Aunor na lang ang hindi tumataas [Only Nora Aunor isn't getting any higher].” The literal translation might not make sense but in common usage, “taas,” rootword of “tumataas,” is used to describe anything from a person’s height to social stature to the skyrocketing prices.

These days, with La Aunor not as visible nor as popular as she once was, people have a new version of the same joke. They say, “Si Gloria Arroyo na lang ang hindi tumataas.” Of course, there is no intention to even remotely suggest that Mrs. Arroyo, at any given time, was as popular and as adored by the public as Nora Aunor used to be. Substituting her name to tell the same joke springs from one reason only–she is the only public figure known to have the same height as Nora Aunor–they are both 4 feet and 9 inches tall–or short, depending from which perspective one is looking.

Anyway, I’m not dedicating this column to an attempt to understand why some people are short while others are tall. The claims of the maker of Cherifer aside, genetics hold the answers to the most fundamental questions. I’m not dedicating this column either to prove that even in the darkest of times, Filipinos never lose their sense of humor and still manage to joke about their sad plight. I think that’s a given. In fact, I started this column with the Nora-Gloria anecdote to lighten the mood because any discussion about the dizzying rise of prices of basic commodities tends to get depressing. And that’s what I really want to talk about–my grocery bill and yours, and the effect of seeing more numerals to the left of the decimal point even though we’re buying the same amount of food stuff and household items.

The so-called experts have a simple way of explaining things. They say that when the price of fuel goes up, everything follows. Of course, these people are silent as to why, during times when the world prices of fuel went down, retail prices of gasoline, diesel, kerosene and LPG in the Philippines never dropped correspondingly. We’d get one rebate of 50 centavos or so per liter for every five or more times that the price went up by one peso or more per liter. That’s what I call a lopsided equation in favor of business and always against the consumer.

We don’t read much about the monopoly on fuel either. Where there used to be six major oil companies in the Philippines called the Six Sisters when I was in college, there are now only three. And, supposedly, the entry of new players, a.k.a., small local petroleum companies, is proof that monopoly is a myth. Whether that constitutes sufficient evidence that rise in local fuel prices are never artificially instigated is up to you. What I do know is that no amount of street protests will give big businesses, especially those in the oil industry, a conscience.

Personally, I don’t like playing the role of victim. That’s often hard to do especially in situations like the present but when it gets more and more difficult to stretch the budget, it is the best time to reassess what it is exactly that make us feel like victims. The truth is, we feel like victims because with the weak peso and the never-ending rise in prices, we are unable to sustain our personal lifestyle. What most people don’t want to face is the fact that the deprivation is probably more artificial than real.

What do I mean? Okay, let’s say that five years ago, the prices of commodities and the combined income of Juan and Juana meant that they could take their children to the mall most weekends. They could afford out-of-town trips once every few weeks and even a foreign trip once a year. They ate hotdogs, corned beef or bacon for breakfast. Lunch and dinner were accompanied by cans of soda. Juan Junior went to karate class and Maria Juana took piano lessons.

Then, crisis hit. Juan and Juana still make the same amount of money but their combined income is no longer sufficient to sustain the weekly visits to the mall, the trips, the hotdogs, corned beef or bacon breakfasts, the constant supply of soda in cans, the karate and piano lessons. So, they start whining. They feel poor, they feel deprived and they start acting like victims.

What Juan and Juana do not realize, or refuse to admit, is that they only feel poor because they are not willing to do away with the non-essentials. What they refuse to admit even more is that giving up these things might actually benefit them and provide one of the most valuable life lessons to their children. I mean, get over it, what loss is there in giving up tons of saturated fat, preservatives and sugar? Is it so wrong to eat home-cooked lugaw for breakfast? Is it such a waste of time to play Scrabble or watch movies at home on Sundays rather than be the quintessential indiscriminate consumer at the mall? Just how essential are karate and piano lessons to the development of a child?

I sympathize with the middle classes when I hear and read about how affected they are by the economic situation. I am one of them and I know. But some of the complaints are just too OA.

92 thoughts on “Overacting

  • September 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm
    Permalink

    We hardly go to the malls. We go to the public market for our cooking needs and we go to a friend’s grocery store for our grocery needs where we get to save a big chunk of money. We keep an excel record of our expenses and our income to help us keep track of our budget. Comparing our income today vs three years ago, we got an increase of a modest 30%. Our list of expenses is still very much the same but today, we can hardly make it. And our list are all essentials. We don’t buy videos, we have no cable for we do not use the TV, we do not eat in fastfood restaurants, we do not eat instant food nor use instant mixes due to an allergy. Yes, we feel poor and we feel deprived. It really is difficult.

    Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm
    Permalink

    bertN,

    The fact that you have access to the internet might belie that fact. ;)

    Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm
    Permalink

    I only remember this saying when faced with difficult times: “Matutong bumaluktot, habang maikli ang kumot.”.

    Reply
    • September 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm
      Permalink

      The constant refrain of “ikaw kano malaking ang pera” gets really tiresome, especially when accompanied with endless ploys to separate me from more of my money just because I am a foreigner. No one magically has change and the price increases as soon as I ask — even though I heard the price quoted lower to the pinoy in front of me! Kainis!

      Reply
      • September 24, 2008 at 6:04 pm
        Permalink

        Deprived of what, Jo Ann? Of not being able to go to the malls, not being able to buy videos or subscribe to cable TV? That’s deprivation?

        BlogusVox, you know, when I hear that, I always say why not do something to be able to afford a kumot that fits?

        Sometimes, I think that this (to borrow Miguk’s phrase) constant refrain of feeling poor and feeling deprived is associated with a twisted concept of sacrifice. Like being able to bear poverty and deprivation is something noble. So even mere deprivation of luxuries is alluded to as real deprivation because it sounds more noble that way.

        Miguk, re “the price quoted lower to the pinoy in front of me”

        Ahhh, the proverbial presyong turista.

        Reply
      • September 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm
        Permalink

        @ Miss Connie, I was just curious, knock on wood but what if you lose whatever you have right now that you’ll have to give up your internet connection, meaning no blogs and articles and stuff, give up your DSLR, i-Phone, Macs, your kitchen island and your other kitchen investments… your new house, no longer able to sustain a 2K per daughter allowance excluding all other school expenses and meals… or even have a loss to the extent that you have to sell your potted herbs… What will you feel?

        I hope that doesn’t happen ever, because just as I find some of your entries disturbing, I really enjoy reading your blogs in general. :) For me it’s really a matter of perspective. If you’re in a totally different situation, perhaps you’d have a different say on this. Same applies to all of us readers.

        So maybe for everyone, if you feel that you’re poor, look around you. If you see somebody else “poorer” than you, be thankful that you’re not so poor after all.

        Reply
        • September 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm
          Permalink

          Ice, you think I’d whine? LOL Hardly. I’ve been there. Living on a P500 food budget per week. Kids going to a not-so-good school but the one we could afford. I didn’t whine; neither did they. You know why? Because I didn’t allow myself to feel like a victim and it’s an attitude my kids acquired. No drama. I strived to turn things around. That simple. Self-pity is just so useless.

          Thing is, people here are getting defensive and personal when the article is so clear that there is a line between legitimate grievances and those which are so OA. Doesn’t the word NON-ESSENTIALS spell it out? Masakit ba masabihan na OA if one whines when one misses the non-essentials? Would you rather I sugarcoat everything and say, “Oh poor you if you can’t afford your annual Hong Kong shopping spree anymore” or “I really feel for you that you can’t eat hotdogs for breakfast anymore”? Sus.

          And just to complete the scenario, the DSL, the dSLR, the Mac? In my line of work, those are tools of the trade. Hardly non-essential. So, wrong analogy.

          Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 6:59 pm
    Permalink

    I think most of the complains are not OA. They are hurting and I am, too. You are lucky because you are not one of us. Lugaw? I had enough of that to last me a lifetime LOL.

    Reply
    • September 24, 2008 at 8:49 pm
      Permalink

      I guess it's just a matter of priorities. We too assesed our situation and made do with a lot of non-essentials…cable tv for one (hubby is at work most of the day and I hardly watch television…why pay for cable?), canned food and meat are also one of those things we eliminated from our diet. You would think it such a sacrifice but in the end, you realize you don't really miss it anymore. We are much healthier now and i've gotten to read more books these past few months. And yes, i don't think there's anything wrong with having lugaw. Better lugaw than hotdogs or instant noodle di ba?

      Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm
    Permalink

    bertN, what do you mean I'm not one of you? You think I'm super rich? LOL Too funny.

    Ysabel, re canned food. Spot on! We gave up canned meat long, long time ago. NOT buying corned beef, Spam, sausages… We also gave up powdered drinks and all those instant things — we saved so much! No broth in cubes either. I buy scrap bones. And now that we don't miss them anymore, we feel better eating more natural food.

    Reply
    • September 24, 2008 at 9:25 pm
      Permalink

      We hardly go to the malls. We go to the public market for our cooking needs and we go to a friend's grocery store for our grocery needs where we get to save a big chunk of money. We keep an excel record of our expenses and our income to help us keep track of our budget. Comparing our income today vs three years ago, we got an increase of a modest 30%. Our list of expenses is still very much the same but today, we can hardly make it. And our list are all essentials. We don't buy videos, we have no cable for we do not use the TV, we do not eat in fastfood restaurants, we do not eat instant food nor use instant mixes due to an allergy. Yes, we feel poor and we feel deprived. It really is difficult.

      Reply
      • September 24, 2008 at 9:37 pm
        Permalink

        bertN,

        The fact that you have access to the internet might belie that fact. ;)

        Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 10:31 pm
    Permalink

    I only remember this saying when faced with difficult times: "Matutong bumaluktot, habang maikli ang kumot.".

    Reply
    • September 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm
      Permalink

      The constant refrain of "ikaw kano malaking ang pera" gets really tiresome, especially when accompanied with endless ploys to separate me from more of my money just because I am a foreigner. No one magically has change and the price increases as soon as I ask — even though I heard the price quoted lower to the pinoy in front of me! Kainis!

      Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 12:44 am
    Permalink

    Am I right to say that what is being discussed here is inflation?

    The situation I don’t like to be in is with an inflation of 8% and you’re employer is giving you a raise much lesser than that.

    Reason according to them: Please bear with us. It’s due to inflation.

    LOL…

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 1:28 am
    Permalink

    We have always lived below our means (just recently got our only cellphone, just one 14 year old car, small house etc.) so we are not really feeling the pinch yet *knock on wood* Our only extravagance eating out for lunch during workdays, twice a week dinner or take outs – my husband and I are not much into cooking. But with the economic climate right now I am a little apprehensive at what the next week, month or year will bring especially when I hear news of businesses closing down and people getting laid off.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2008 at 2:05 am
      Permalink

      For the middle class that might be a valid point. For the poor, the poorest of the poor, the devaluing of the peso, or the dollar in my corner of the world, would mean the choice of eating three meals a day, with no essentials, to two. It might mean being able to pay for public transportation to go to work, or not. It might mean being able to send the kids to school with baon, or not.

      I don’t like playing the victim either, but for many people, it’s not just the essentials being taken away because of the rising price of commodities, and everything along with it.

      What frustrates me is that, for example, this $700 billion proposed bailout of the mortgage companies and banks in the US. There are provisions there for huge sums of exit money for CEOs. The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place. I’m not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don’t hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance.

      And then they have the gall to put pressure on the Congress and Senate to pass the bill ASAP without any changes, sufficient time to study and peruse, and with constant pressure and fear-mongering.

      I guess what I’m saying is, people may try not to live like victims. It’s a noble cause, but futile. Big business rules. One way or another, they’ll sock it to the average family.

      Reply
      • September 25, 2008 at 2:10 am
        Permalink

        Sorry, i sound so bitter. Hahah! Must keep my sense of humor in these times. :)

        Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 2:04 am
    Permalink

    Deprived of what, Jo Ann? Of not being able to go to the malls, not being able to buy videos or subscribe to cable TV? That's deprivation?

    BlogusVox, you know, when I hear that, I always say why not do something to be able to afford a kumot that fits?

    Sometimes, I think that this (to borrow Miguk's phrase) constant refrain of feeling poor and feeling deprived is associated with a twisted concept of sacrifice. Like being able to bear poverty and deprivation is something noble. So even mere deprivation of luxuries is alluded to as real deprivation because it sounds more noble that way.

    Miguk, re "the price quoted lower to the pinoy in front of me"

    Ahhh, the proverbial presyong turista.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 3:49 am
    Permalink

    Is this a lesson for all of us? We just can not depend on the government. Whining or complaining is not going to help us. A lot of politicians and big corporations are up there for themselves.

    In order for things to change, we have to change. We have to make the right choice and vote for the best person to solve our #1 problem – the economy. To bring more money or food on the table, some of us might need to take a part time job, or do a little business on the side. That’s what my wife and I have been doing.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 4:28 am
    Permalink

    @ Miss Connie, I was just curious, knock on wood but what if you lose whatever you have right now that you'll have to give up your internet connection, meaning no blogs and articles and stuff, give up your DSLR, i-Phone, Macs, your kitchen island and your other kitchen investments… your new house, no longer able to sustain a 2K per daughter allowance excluding all other school expenses and meals… or even have a loss to the extent that you have to sell your potted herbs… What will you feel?

    I hope that doesn't happen ever, because just as I find some of your entries disturbing, I really enjoy reading your blogs in general. :) For me it's really a matter of perspective. If you're in a totally different situation, perhaps you'd have a different say on this. Same applies to all of us readers.

    So maybe for everyone, if you feel that you're poor, look around you. If you see somebody else "poorer" than you, be thankful that you're not so poor after all.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
      Permalink

      For the middle class that might be a valid point. For the poor, the poorest of the poor, the devaluing of the peso, or the dollar in my corner of the world, would mean the choice of eating three meals a day, with no essentials, to two. It might mean being able to pay for public transportation to go to work, or not. It might mean being able to send the kids to school with baon, or not.

      I don't like playing the victim either, but for many people, it's not just the essentials being taken away because of the rising price of commodities, and everything along with it.

      What frustrates me is that, for example, this $700 billion proposed bailout of the mortgage companies and banks in the US. There are provisions there for huge sums of exit money for CEOs. The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place. I'm not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don't hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance.

      And then they have the gall to put pressure on the Congress and Senate to pass the bill ASAP without any changes, sufficient time to study and peruse, and with constant pressure and fear-mongering.

      I guess what I'm saying is, people may try not to live like victims. It's a noble cause, but futile. Big business rules. One way or another, they'll sock it to the average family.

      Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 5:10 am
    Permalink

    Ice, you think I'd whine? LOL Hardly. I've been there. Living on a P500 food budget per week. Kids going to a not-so-good school but the one we could afford. I didn't whine; neither did they. You know why? Because I didn't allow myself to feel like a victim and it's an attitude my kids acquired. No drama. I strived to turn things around. That simple. Self-pity is just so useless.

    Thing is, people here are getting defensive and personal when the article is so clear that there is a line between legitimate grievances and those which are so OA. Doesn't the word NON-ESSENTIALS spell it out? Masakit ba masabihan na OA if one whines when one misses the non-essentials? Would you rather I sugarcoat everything and say, "Oh poor you if you can't afford your annual Hong Kong shopping spree anymore" or "I really feel for you that you can't eat hotdogs for breakfast anymore"? Sus.

    And just to complete the scenario, the DSL, the dSLR, the Mac? In my line of work, those are tools of the trade. Hardly non-essential. So, wrong analogy.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2008 at 8:44 am
      Permalink

      Am I right to say that what is being discussed here is inflation?

      The situation I don't like to be in is with an inflation of 8% and you're employer is giving you a raise much lesser than that.

      Reason according to them: Please bear with us. It's due to inflation.

      LOL…

      Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 7:56 am
    Permalink

    Sassy: “Ahhh, the proverbial presyong turista” Yes, but I am not a tourist. I don’t even go to tourist places. This happens in the palengki; it happens on the jeepney (never get my change unless I ask) — let’s not even talk about taxis; Restaurants; bathroom attendants; trash collectors; security guards; hell, even the beggars all want more!
    Not all — in fact I would wager not even most — foreigners are rich.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 8:04 am
    Permalink

    It isn’t just inflation, Trosp. Pinayhekmi says it as it is: Big business rules. A lot of the rising prices are artificially caused. Just recall the word war between the DTI people and the bakers’ association about the price of flour and the price of bread. DTI says rise of price of bread is not justified because the global price of flour has gone down. And yet, the bakers’ association says there are other factors too. We aren’t privy to those factors so we consumers just have to buy bread at prices they dictate.

    Geri, re “We have always lived below our means”

    I think that’s the key to financial management. Never spend more than fraction of what you earn.

    Pinayhekmi, yes, that’s the point. When the poor complain, it’s because it is the ESSENTIALS they are being deprived of — livelihood, shelter, food… But when not-so-poor people complain about not being able to buy new clothes or shoes, or not being able to afford a private Catholic school for their kids (which is a status symbol for them), it’s disgusting.

    Re “I’m not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don’t hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance.”

    It has a lot to do with the partnership between these big businesses and mass media. It is media that they use (and media are willing to be used because advertising is income) to get those manipulative (and, often, untrue) messages across in the form of advertising.

    JMonreal, I’m not so sure that voting alone will do much change.

    Miguk, even those perceived as “local tourists” get the same treatment. For instance, we have been living in this suburban town for over 7 years but when I alight from the car to buy suman in a roadside stall, they give me “tourist prices” because they see me as a city girl (or, sometimes, a Japanese tourist). It sucks, I know. It’s a mentality that if they can put one over you, they will.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2008 at 10:07 am
      Permalink

      Yes it sucks. God forbid I ever take my car to the repair shop myself!

      Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 9:28 am
    Permalink

    We have always lived below our means (just recently got our only cellphone, just one 14 year old car, small house etc.) so we are not really feeling the pinch yet *knock on wood* Our only extravagance eating out for lunch during workdays, twice a week dinner or take outs – my husband and I are not much into cooking. But with the economic climate right now I am a little apprehensive at what the next week, month or year will bring especially when I hear news of businesses closing down and people getting laid off.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 10:10 am
    Permalink

    Sorry, i sound so bitter. Hahah! Must keep my sense of humor in these times. :)

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    Is this a lesson for all of us? We just can not depend on the government. Whining or complaining is not going to help us. A lot of politicians and big corporations are up there for themselves.

    In order for things to change, we have to change. We have to make the right choice and vote for the best person to solve our #1 problem – the economy. To bring more money or food on the table, some of us might need to take a part time job, or do a little business on the side. That's what my wife and I have been doing.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm
    Permalink

    Sassy: "Ahhh, the proverbial presyong turista" Yes, but I am not a tourist. I don't even go to tourist places. This happens in the palengki; it happens on the jeepney (never get my change unless I ask) — let's not even talk about taxis; Restaurants; bathroom attendants; trash collectors; security guards; hell, even the beggars all want more!
    Not all — in fact I would wager not even most — foreigners are rich.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 4:04 pm
    Permalink

    It isn't just inflation, Trosp. Pinayhekmi says it as it is: Big business rules. A lot of the rising prices are artificially caused. Just recall the word war between the DTI people and the bakers' association about the price of flour and the price of bread. DTI says rise of price of bread is not justified because the global price of flour has gone down. And yet, the bakers' association says there are other factors too. We aren't privy to those factors so we consumers just have to buy bread at prices they dictate.

    Geri, re "We have always lived below our means"

    I think that's the key to financial management. Never spend more than fraction of what you earn.

    Pinayhekmi, yes, that's the point. When the poor complain, it's because it is the ESSENTIALS they are being deprived of — livelihood, shelter, food… But when not-so-poor people complain about not being able to buy new clothes or shoes, or not being able to afford a private Catholic school for their kids (which is a status symbol for them), it's disgusting.

    Re "I'm not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don't hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance."

    It has a lot to do with the partnership between these big businesses and mass media. It is media that they use (and media are willing to be used because advertising is income) to get those manipulative (and, often, untrue) messages across in the form of advertising.

    JMonreal, I'm not so sure that voting alone will do much change.

    Miguk, even those perceived as "local tourists" get the same treatment. For instance, we have been living in this suburban town for over 7 years but when I alight from the car to buy suman in a roadside stall, they give me "tourist prices" because they see me as a city girl (or, sometimes, a Japanese tourist). It sucks, I know. It's a mentality that if they can put one over you, they will.

    Reply
    • September 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm
      Permalink

      Yes it sucks. God forbid I ever take my car to the repair shop myself!

      Reply
      • September 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
        Permalink

        The Republican Party line of belief regarding economics is thus: give the money to the big business and it will "trickle down" to the masses. This is what makes the Republican party so popular with big business. I am NOT saying Democrats don't have handshake deals both transparent and not transparent with Democrats, but I'm holding Republicans to the line because this is their party's singing tune.

        They have also been the one historically, to favor deregulation including deregulation of the SEC, which led to making it harder to question their accounting. That loosening of the law led to Enron's collapse, and others like it.

        Anyway, I could go on and on. I am not anti-Republicans, but I am pro-regulation.

        Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    Permalink

    pinayhekmi,

    Your comment:

    “The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place. I’m not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don’t hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance.”

    If you mean republican government as the Republican Party in the US, will it be possible for you to elaborate it further?

    Reply
  • September 26, 2008 at 2:39 am
    Permalink

    pinayhekmi,

    Your comment:

    "The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place. I'm not saying that individuals who borrowed too much don't hold responsibility, but these companies are so manipulative, the average ignorant consumer never had the chance."

    If you mean republican government as the Republican Party in the US, will it be possible for you to elaborate it further?

    Reply
    • September 26, 2008 at 5:21 am
      Permalink

      Connie, if you look good and drive good they will put one over you. You can not hide that. They know it, they are smart.

      Reply
  • September 26, 2008 at 9:33 am
    Permalink

    The Republican Party line of belief regarding economics is thus: give the money to the big business and it will “trickle down” to the masses. This is what makes the Republican party so popular with big business. I am NOT saying Democrats don’t have handshake deals both transparent and not transparent with Democrats, but I’m holding Republicans to the line because this is their party’s singing tune.

    They have also been the one historically, to favor deregulation including deregulation of the SEC, which led to making it harder to question their accounting. That loosening of the law led to Enron’s collapse, and others like it.

    Anyway, I could go on and on. I am not anti-Republicans, but I am pro-regulation.

    Reply
    • September 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm
      Permalink

      Pinayhekmi,

      Initially, you were telling us that “”The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place.”

      Now you’re telling us that “I am NOT saying Democrats don’t have handshake deals both transparent and not transparent with Democrats, but I’m holding Republicans to the line because this is their party’s singing tune.”

      Why can’t you just say US politicians caused it? Contrary with your agenda?. Then this another one from you –

      “They have also been the one historically, to favor deregulation including deregulation of the SEC, which led to making it harder to question their accounting. That loosening of the law led to Enron’s collapse, and others like it.”

      Ok let’s do some fact checking. Let’s have its history (caps are mine)–

      “To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. THE CARTER-ERA COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT FORCED BANKS TO LEND TO UNCREDITWORTHY BORROWERS, MOSTLY IN MINORITY AREAS.

      Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. IN THEIR PLACE CAME HARSH NEW REGULATIONS REQUIRING BANKS NOT ONLY TO LEND TO UNCREDITWORTHY BORROWERS, BUT TO DO SO ON THE BASIS OF RACE.

      These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, CLINTON PUSHED EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO THE RULES REQUIRING LENDERS TO MAKE QUESTIONABLE LOANS. [...]

      FAILURE TO COMPLY MEANT YOUR BANK MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND LENDING, ADD NEW BRANCHES OR MERGE WITH OTHER COMPANIES. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. [...]

      IN THE NAME OF DIVERSITY, BANKS BEGAN MAKING HUGE NUMBERS OF LOANS THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY WOULD NOT HAVE. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

      MEANWHILE, CONGRESS GAVE FANNIE AND FREDDIE THE GO-AHEAD TO FINANCE IT ALL BY BUYING LOANS FROM BANKS, THEN REPACKAGING AND SECURITIZING THEM FOR RESALE ON THE OPEN MARKET.

      That’s how the contagion began.

      With those changes, the subprime market took off. FROM A MERE $35 BILLION IN LOANS IN 1994, IT SOARED TO $1 TRILLION BY 2008.”

      More on that in the below links which will provide you with links for your verifications –

      http://tinyurl.com/3z7n2k
      http://tinyurl.com/3phdrk

      We must also take a look on these Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political campaign contributions. On the 25 politicians that they have financially contributed – 17 were democrats and 8 were Republicans. Number one in the list is Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd ($133,900) followed in order by Demoratic Senators 2. John Kerry ($111,000), 3. Barrack Hussein Obama ($105,849), 4. Hilary Clinton ($75,550). Democratic Senator Frank Barney is 16th ($40,100).

      More on that in this link – http://tinyurl.com/3vbaj7

      The reason I took pains in including it in my comment is Dodd, Obama, and Barney are the the noisiest that it was Bush/Republican’s screw-ups why they have this current financial crisis.

      I might have nit picked on the information I want to present. I would appreciate very much your debunking me. Just provide the link and not just your say so.

      BTW, if what I’m commenting is really true, why is it that most Americans seems oblivious with the issue.

      Answer: You don’t see them in their MSM who is after in getting the news out and not in getting the news right. Of course, the second reason is for the leftwing who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. Don’t confuse them with facts.

      Reply
      • September 26, 2008 at 2:23 pm
        Permalink

        Correction in my last comment-

        “Of course, the second reason is for the leftwing who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. Don’t confuse them with facts.”

        Should be-

        “Of course, the second reason is for the leftwings who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. They don’t bother themselves with facts”.

        Reply
        • September 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm
          Permalink

          “bertN, what do you mean I’m not one of you? You think I’m super rich? LOL Too funny.”
          Tita Connie, you mean you consider yourself middle-class? Now THAT is even funnier – in a hypocritical kind of way.

          Reply
          • September 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
            Permalink

            marilou, re “Now THAT is even funnier – in a hypocritical kind of way.”

            Now THAT is the FUNNIEST of all — in a STUPID kind of way. Since you don’t know my net worth, it is actually superfluous to point out how presumptuously stupid your comment is.

          • September 27, 2008 at 1:42 am
            Permalink

            pimayhekmi.

            Any comment?

          • September 27, 2008 at 6:45 am
            Permalink

            Huh? Trosp calm down. I don’t have an “agenda”. I trust politicians about as far as I could throw them. I included Republicans because I mean republicans, not specifically Bush. The cry of the Republican party has always been to deregulate, but I’m not surprised that both parties have contributed to this mess. Big businesses all have hands in politicians’ pockets.

            My statement of the republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people, is simply to say that: the current government is republican, which ties with their party’s historically pro-business approach. The original $700 billion bill, as I understand it from the news ( and no I’m not gonna go linking, I have to start reading a few chapters for school soon) would provide no regulatory oversight over the money doled out, would provide “golden parachutes” for CEOs.

            I don’t have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there. Families who are struggling to make ends meet, who are worried of having to uproot their kids from their homes, who are facing foreclosures. Why didn’t Bush and Paulson make sure that there was already a limit on golden parachutes? How many billions were appropriated for these CEOs salaries? Why did it take insistence from both Houses that these exit salaries be limited before it was actually considered? Why is there even any consideration for them? Heaven forbid that these CEOs be satisfied with their millions of yearly salary. If I took on a tone of outrage it is because of this injustices to families.

            I understand the difference and impact if a big business fails, versus a family. But my sympathies lie with families.

          • September 27, 2008 at 9:39 pm
            Permalink

            [deleted for utter bitchiness and stupidity]

          • September 27, 2008 at 11:15 pm
            Permalink

            pinahekmi,

            You’re correct. Sometimes I get carried away and I need to calm down.

            But then what happened with your below comment?

            “The very people (you’re referring to the Republicans, aren’t you?) who created this mess in the first place.”

            I’m not seeing anything from you on their cry to deregulate. Mas mainainam siguro may sample meaning some reference. (Perhaps, I can put up something related to this issue later.)

            What I know is they are in the front line of this bailout which it seems to be the best option.

            For your below comment –

            “I don’t have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there. Families who are struggling to make ends meet, who are worried of having to uproot their kids from their homes, who are facing foreclosures. Why didn’t Bush and Paulson make sure that there was already a limit on golden parachutes?”

            Please revisit my previous last comment on why it has happened.

            You commented –

            “I don’t have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there.”

            Is this the same as you have not read them yet?

          • September 27, 2008 at 11:59 pm
            Permalink

            Pahabol lang pinayhekmi,

            Demorats ang majority ngayon since the last US election.

          • September 28, 2008 at 2:23 am
            Permalink

            Trosp, I don’t think you having a point excludes the possibility that I do too. Okay, regarding deregulation policies of the Republicans:

            The second half of the 20th century saw election of Republican presidents

            “In the 21st century the Republican Party is defined by social conservatism, an aggressive foreign policy attempting to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy,[citation needed] a more powerful executive branch, tax cuts, and deregulation and subsidization of industry.” From : http://tiny.cc/KB1RN

            Also:
            Under Ronald Reagan’s administration: http://tiny.cc/KneBJ
            Under Nixon: http://tiny.cc/QWmLZ
            Regarding the declawing of the SEC: http://tiny.cc/6TjdJ
            And the possible future president: http://tiny.cc/m1ZlT

            Like I said, this has been the Republican’s slogan.

          • September 28, 2008 at 6:21 pm
            Permalink

            BlogusVox, I agree with that interpretation. That’s not the only interpretation I’ve heard, naku, especially from oldies.

          • September 28, 2008 at 9:45 pm
            Permalink

            You know pinayhekmi, I would thought that you could do something better. I’ve read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself.

            I don’t want to confuse you with facts.

            I rest my case.

          • September 28, 2008 at 10:06 pm
            Permalink

            Correction in my post-

            “You know pinayhekmi, I would thought that you could do something better. I’ve read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself.”

            Shoud read-

            “You know pinayhekmi, I would think that you could do something better. I’ve read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself.”

            English grammar is my worst enemy.

          • September 29, 2008 at 8:09 am
            Permalink

            I watched the Presidential debates (you can see it on YouTube if interested) and that topic was definitely at the top of the agenda. As an aside, this is the first time I have really seen Obama for an extended period and to me he really did seem….presidential.

          • September 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm
            Permalink

            I agree that Obama seem… presidential.

            Let’s read this one from a Fil-Am in USA who has FULLY COVERED the debate:

            (I also have my own bias he he he…)

            Who won?
            By Michelle Malkin • September 26, 2008 11:11 PM

            I’m giving it to McCain — and you know I’m a tough grader on him.

            He was slow out of the gate — a broken record on earmarks and spending — but Obama failed to turn the bailout debacle against him. McCain hit his stride in the second half, schooling Obama on counterinsurgency, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Russia.

            McCain made no major soundbite-able gaffes. It was more a matter of a few missed opportunities for McCain than the commission of any major errors. Major omission of the night from McCain: Did he say a single word in defense of conservative principles and free-market economics?

            Obama, on the other hand, committed several gaffes:

            1) I have a bracelet, too! Uhhhh, but give me a second because I can’t remember the name on it.

            2) Using Joe Biden as his human shield.

            3) Using that “John is absolutely right” phrase…already a McCain ad, of course.

            4) And answering the question about preventing another 9/11 by babbling about “respect” and “restoring standing.”

          • September 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm
            Permalink

            pinayhekmi,

            Me, I’m not picking a fight with anybody. I just want to put up what items were missed out in a discussion. I can say that it is normal for one to have a bias. For me, the point of it being abnormal is when it becomes a gross bias.

            We can be bias but at least support it with facts.

            I like your remark –

            “So yup, I’ll do something better with my time. I’m going to bed. Yawn, good night.”

            I noticed the time stamp of your post is 09.29.08 at 2:19 pm.

          • September 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm
            Permalink

            Of course Michelle Malkin will say McCain won — she is a Republican shrill. I am also a Republican, but I don’t have a rice bowl to protect like her, so I have the luxury of picking the person who did and will do the best job — Obama

          • October 1, 2008 at 12:00 am
            Permalink

            Michelle aside from covering the whole debate has basis why he picked McCain as the winner? How about you Miguk? Care to share it?

          • September 29, 2008 at 10:11 am
            Permalink

            and McCain sounds like a broken record during the debate with his famous “I was …”. Here’s the latest Gallup Poll Daily (Thursday to Saturday) with registered voters – Obama(50%) and McCain(42%).

          • September 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm
            Permalink

            Trosp, I’m new to this political rhetoric thing. I’ve always been averse to it, because from what I can tell, nobody can concede a point, and no nitpicking is small enough. (Especially when it comes to people who love to battle politics).

            So yup, I’ll do something better with my time. I’m going to bed. Yawn, good night.

  • September 26, 2008 at 10:06 pm
    Permalink

    Pinayhekmi,

    Initially, you were telling us that ""The republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people. The very people who created this mess in the first place."

    Now you're telling us that "I am NOT saying Democrats don't have handshake deals both transparent and not transparent with Democrats, but I'm holding Republicans to the line because this is their party's singing tune."

    Why can't you just say US politicians caused it? Contrary with your agenda?. Then this another one from you –

    "They have also been the one historically, to favor deregulation including deregulation of the SEC, which led to making it harder to question their accounting. That loosening of the law led to Enron's collapse, and others like it."

    Ok let's do some fact checking. Let's have its history (caps are mine)–

    "To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. THE CARTER-ERA COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT FORCED BANKS TO LEND TO UNCREDITWORTHY BORROWERS, MOSTLY IN MINORITY AREAS.

    Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. IN THEIR PLACE CAME HARSH NEW REGULATIONS REQUIRING BANKS NOT ONLY TO LEND TO UNCREDITWORTHY BORROWERS, BUT TO DO SO ON THE BASIS OF RACE.

    These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, CLINTON PUSHED EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO THE RULES REQUIRING LENDERS TO MAKE QUESTIONABLE LOANS. [...]

    FAILURE TO COMPLY MEANT YOUR BANK MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND LENDING, ADD NEW BRANCHES OR MERGE WITH OTHER COMPANIES. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. [...]

    IN THE NAME OF DIVERSITY, BANKS BEGAN MAKING HUGE NUMBERS OF LOANS THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY WOULD NOT HAVE. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

    MEANWHILE, CONGRESS GAVE FANNIE AND FREDDIE THE GO-AHEAD TO FINANCE IT ALL BY BUYING LOANS FROM BANKS, THEN REPACKAGING AND SECURITIZING THEM FOR RESALE ON THE OPEN MARKET.

    That's how the contagion began.

    With those changes, the subprime market took off. FROM A MERE $35 BILLION IN LOANS IN 1994, IT SOARED TO $1 TRILLION BY 2008."

    More on that in the below links which will provide you with links for your verifications –
    http://tinyurl.com/3z7n2k http://tinyurl.com/3phdrk

    We must also take a look on these Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political campaign contributions. On the 25 politicians that they have financially contributed – 17 were democrats and 8 were Republicans. Number one in the list is Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd ($133,900) followed in order by Demoratic Senators 2. John Kerry ($111,000), 3. Barrack Hussein Obama ($105,849), 4. Hilary Clinton ($75,550). Democratic Senator Frank Barney is 16th ($40,100).

    More on that in this link – http://tinyurl.com/3vbaj7

    The reason I took pains in including it in my comment is Dodd, Obama, and Barney are the the noisiest that it was Bush/Republican's screw-ups why they have this current financial crisis.

    I might have nit picked on the information I want to present. I would appreciate very much your debunking me. Just provide the link and not just your say so.

    BTW, if what I'm commenting is really true, why is it that most Americans seems oblivious with the issue.

    Answer: You don't see them in their MSM who is after in getting the news out and not in getting the news right. Of course, the second reason is for the leftwing who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. Don't confuse them with facts.

    Reply
  • September 26, 2008 at 10:23 pm
    Permalink

    Correction in my last comment-

    "Of course, the second reason is for the leftwing who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. Don't confuse them with facts."

    Should be-

    "Of course, the second reason is for the leftwings who are the most noisiest, their minds are made up. They don't bother themselves with facts".

    Reply
  • September 27, 2008 at 3:08 am
    Permalink

    "bertN, what do you mean I'm not one of you? You think I'm super rich? LOL Too funny."
    Tita Connie, you mean you consider yourself middle-class? Now THAT is even funnier – in a hypocritical kind of way.

    Reply
  • September 27, 2008 at 4:34 am
    Permalink

    marilou, re "Now THAT is even funnier – in a hypocritical kind of way."

    Now THAT is the FUNNIEST of all — in a STUPID kind of way. Since you don't know my net worth, it is actually superfluous to point out how presumptuously stupid your comment is.

    Reply
  • September 27, 2008 at 9:42 am
    Permalink

    pimayhekmi.

    Any comment?

    Reply
    • September 27, 2008 at 2:45 pm
      Permalink

      Huh? Trosp calm down. I don't have an "agenda". I trust politicians about as far as I could throw them. I included Republicans because I mean republicans, not specifically Bush. The cry of the Republican party has always been to deregulate, but I'm not surprised that both parties have contributed to this mess. Big businesses all have hands in politicians' pockets.

      My statement of the republican government is still trying to save the asses of these people, is simply to say that: the current government is republican, which ties with their party's historically pro-business approach. The original $700 billion bill, as I understand it from the news ( and no I'm not gonna go linking, I have to start reading a few chapters for school soon) would provide no regulatory oversight over the money doled out, would provide "golden parachutes" for CEOs.

      I don't have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there. Families who are struggling to make ends meet, who are worried of having to uproot their kids from their homes, who are facing foreclosures. Why didn't Bush and Paulson make sure that there was already a limit on golden parachutes? How many billions were appropriated for these CEOs salaries? Why did it take insistence from both Houses that these exit salaries be limited before it was actually considered? Why is there even any consideration for them? Heaven forbid that these CEOs be satisfied with their millions of yearly salary. If I took on a tone of outrage it is because of this injustices to families.

      I understand the difference and impact if a big business fails, versus a family. But my sympathies lie with families.

      Reply
  • September 28, 2008 at 5:39 am
    Permalink

    [deleted for utter bitchiness and stupidity]

    Reply
  • September 28, 2008 at 7:15 am
    Permalink

    pinahekmi,

    You're correct. Sometimes I get carried away and I need to calm down.

    But then what happened with your below comment?

    "The very people (you're referring to the Republicans, aren't you?) who created this mess in the first place."

    I'm not seeing anything from you on their cry to deregulate. Mas mainainam siguro may sample meaning some reference. (Perhaps, I can put up something related to this issue later.)

    What I know is they are in the front line of this bailout which it seems to be the best option.

    For your below comment –

    "I don't have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there. Families who are struggling to make ends meet, who are worried of having to uproot their kids from their homes, who are facing foreclosures. Why didn't Bush and Paulson make sure that there was already a limit on golden parachutes?"

    Please revisit my previous last comment on why it has happened.

    You commented –

    "I don't have a copy of the bill (of course) but what I would like to see is a bailout for families there."

    Is this the same as you have not read them yet?

    Reply
  • September 28, 2008 at 7:59 am
    Permalink

    Pahabol lang pinayhekmi,

    Demorats ang majority ngayon since the last US election.

    Reply
  • September 28, 2008 at 10:23 am
    Permalink

    Trosp, I don't think you having a point excludes the possibility that I do too. Okay, regarding deregulation policies of the Republicans:

    The second half of the 20th century saw election of Republican presidents

    "In the 21st century the Republican Party is defined by social conservatism, an aggressive foreign policy attempting to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy,[citation needed] a more powerful executive branch, tax cuts, and deregulation and subsidization of industry." From : http://tiny.cc/KB1RN

    Also:
    Under Ronald Reagan's administration: http://tiny.cc/KneBJ
    Under Nixon: http://tiny.cc/QWmLZ
    Regarding the declawing of the SEC: http://tiny.cc/6TjdJ
    And the possible future president: http://tiny.cc/m1ZlT

    Like I said, this has been the Republican's slogan.

    Reply
  • September 28, 2008 at 4:13 pm
    Permalink

    “Matutong bumaluktot habang maikli ang kumot”

    Ms. Sassy, that saying means, we should be frugal and do away with unnecessary “wants” in times of hardship.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 12:13 am
    Permalink

    "Matutong bumaluktot habang maikli ang kumot"

    Ms. Sassy, that saying means, we should be frugal and do away with unnecessary "wants" in times of hardship.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 2:21 am
    Permalink

    BlogusVox, I agree with that interpretation. That's not the only interpretation I've heard, naku, especially from oldies.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 5:45 am
    Permalink

    You know pinayhekmi, I would thought that you could do something better. I've read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself.

    I don't want to confuse you with facts.

    I rest my case.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 6:06 am
    Permalink

    Correction in my post-

    "You know pinayhekmi, I would thought that you could do something better. I've read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself."

    Shoud read-

    "You know pinayhekmi, I would think that you could do something better. I've read and reread your links. I would even advise you to reread it yourself."

    English grammar is my worst enemy.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm
    Permalink

    I watched the Presidential debates (you can see it on YouTube if interested) and that topic was definitely at the top of the agenda. As an aside, this is the first time I have really seen Obama for an extended period and to me he really did seem….presidential.

    Reply
    • September 29, 2008 at 6:11 pm
      Permalink

      and McCain sounds like a broken record during the debate with his famous "I was …". Here's the latest Gallup Poll Daily (Thursday to Saturday) with registered voters – Obama(50%) and McCain(42%).

      Reply
      • September 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm
        Permalink

        I agree that Obama seem… presidential.

        Let's read this one from a Fil-Am in USA who has FULLY COVERED the debate:

        (I also have my own bias he he he…)

        Who won?
        By Michelle Malkin • September 26, 2008 11:11 PM

        I'm giving it to McCain — and you know I'm a tough grader on him.

        He was slow out of the gate — a broken record on earmarks and spending — but Obama failed to turn the bailout debacle against him. McCain hit his stride in the second half, schooling Obama on counterinsurgency, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Russia.

        McCain made no major soundbite-able gaffes. It was more a matter of a few missed opportunities for McCain than the commission of any major errors. Major omission of the night from McCain: Did he say a single word in defense of conservative principles and free-market economics?

        Obama, on the other hand, committed several gaffes:

        1) I have a bracelet, too! Uhhhh, but give me a second because I can't remember the name on it.

        2) Using Joe Biden as his human shield.

        3) Using that "John is absolutely right" phrase…already a McCain ad, of course.

        4) And answering the question about preventing another 9/11 by babbling about "respect" and "restoring standing."

        Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm
    Permalink

    Trosp, I'm new to this political rhetoric thing. I've always been averse to it, because from what I can tell, nobody can concede a point, and no nitpicking is small enough. (Especially when it comes to people who love to battle politics).

    So yup, I'll do something better with my time. I'm going to bed. Yawn, good night.

    Reply
  • September 29, 2008 at 10:41 pm
    Permalink

    pinayhekmi,

    Me, I'm not picking a fight with anybody. I just want to put up what items were missed out in a discussion. I can say that it is normal for one to have a bias. For me, the point of it being abnormal is when it becomes a gross bias.

    We can be bias but at least support it with facts.

    I like your remark –

    "So yup, I'll do something better with my time. I'm going to bed. Yawn, good night."

    I noticed the time stamp of your post is 09.29.08 at 2:19 pm.

    Reply
  • October 1, 2008 at 12:08 am
    Permalink

    Of course Michelle Malkin will say McCain won — she is a Republican shrill. I am also a Republican, but I don't have a rice bowl to protect like her, so I have the luxury of picking the person who did and will do the best job — Obama

    Reply
  • October 1, 2008 at 8:00 am
    Permalink

    Michelle aside from covering the whole debate has basis why he picked McCain as the winner? How about you Miguk? Care to share it?

    Reply
  • October 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm
    Permalink

    Pettiness aside (partisan sniping; never using Obama's name), McCain just was not convincing. He had no agenda and no specifics — just pablum and rhetorical stunts — just like the literal stunts of his VP pick and suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis

    Reply
  • October 2, 2008 at 8:20 pm
    Permalink

    Historically, presidential debates are not just about winning arguments. The candidates' demeanor speaks volumes, e.g. Kennedy-Nixon, Reagan-Carter, Gore-Bush, etc. and becomes the turning point if not one of the main deciding factors in the election. As I was watching this debate, McCain's disdain for Obama was palpable-wouldn't even look at him. He dismissed Obama like some young whippersnapper. Obama on the other hand, was deferential (too much, in my opinion), looked and spoke directly to his opponent and made eye contact with the audience. The morning after, I watched all the morning shows (Today, Good Morning America, CBS Early Show) and all featured body language experts to analyze the debate. Well, guess who lost in that department? Since the debate, Obama has surged (McCain's favorite word after POW) ahead in the polls.

    Reply
  • October 2, 2008 at 9:23 pm
    Permalink

    Miguk commented-

    “Pettiness aside (partisan sniping; never using Obama’s name), McCain just was not convincing. He had no agenda and no specifics — just pablum and rhetorical stunts — just like the literal stunts of his VP pick and suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis”

    Care to share us some specifics? Setting aside the fact checking, anybody can claim that.

    Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis? I think you don’t even understand what you’re commenting. Otherwise, you should have at least provide some context.

    BTW, calling Obama a young whippersnapper is a compliment for him. Actually, he is an embarrassment for the whippersnappers.

    For me he is just a plain Chicago thug who would put everybody under the bus (his former friends and associates racist Rev Wright, American terrorist Ayers, corruptor Rezko) for his convenience. He is an incorrigible liar (see my comment in the other post in this blog).

    Reply
    • October 2, 2008 at 11:40 pm
      Permalink

      Correction on my last post-

      “Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis? ”

      Should read-

      “Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis a stunt?”

      Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 5:23 am
    Permalink

    Miguk commented-

    "Pettiness aside (partisan sniping; never using Obama's name), McCain just was not convincing. He had no agenda and no specifics — just pablum and rhetorical stunts — just like the literal stunts of his VP pick and suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis"

    Care to share us some specifics? Setting aside the fact checking, anybody can claim that.

    Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis? I think you don't even understand what you're commenting. Otherwise, you should have at least provide some context.

    BTW, calling Obama a young whippersnapper is a compliment for him. Actually, he is an embarrassment for the whippersnappers.

    For me he is just a plain Chicago thug who would put everybody under the bus (his former friends and associates racist Rev Wright, American terrorist Ayers, corruptor Rezko) for his convenience. He is an incorrigible liar (see my comment in the other post in this blog).

    Reply
  • October 3, 2008 at 7:40 am
    Permalink

    Correction on my last post-

    "Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis? "

    Should read-

    "Why would you call his suspension of his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis a stunt?"

    Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 10:59 am
    Permalink

    I think most of the complains are not OA. They are hurting and I am, too. You are lucky because you are not one of us. Lugaw? I had enough of that to last me a lifetime LOL.

    Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm
    Permalink

    I guess it’s just a matter of priorities. We too assesed our situation and made do with a lot of non-essentials…cable tv for one (hubby is at work most of the day and I hardly watch television…why pay for cable?), canned food and meat are also one of those things we eliminated from our diet. You would think it such a sacrifice but in the end, you realize you don’t really miss it anymore. We are much healthier now and i’ve gotten to read more books these past few months. And yes, i don’t think there’s anything wrong with having lugaw. Better lugaw than hotdogs or instant noodle di ba?

    Reply
  • September 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm
    Permalink

    bertN, what do you mean I’m not one of you? You think I’m super rich? LOL Too funny.

    Ysabel, re canned food. Spot on! We gave up canned meat long, long time ago. NOT buying corned beef, Spam, sausages… We also gave up powdered drinks and all those instant things — we saved so much! No broth in cubes either. I buy scrap bones. And now that we don’t miss them anymore, we feel better eating more natural food.

    Reply
  • September 25, 2008 at 9:21 pm
    Permalink

    Connie, if you look good and drive good they will put one over you. You can not hide that. They know it, they are smart.

    Reply
  • October 2, 2008 at 8:46 am
    Permalink

    Pettiness aside (partisan sniping; never using Obama’s name), McCain just was not convincing. He had no agenda and no specifics — just pablum and rhetorical stunts — just like the literal stunts of his VP pick and suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis

    Reply
  • October 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm
    Permalink

    Historically, presidential debates are not just about winning arguments. The candidates’ demeanor speaks volumes, e.g. Kennedy-Nixon, Reagan-Carter, Gore-Bush, etc. and becomes the turning point if not one of the main deciding factors in the election. As I was watching this debate, McCain’s disdain for Obama was palpable-wouldn’t even look at him. He dismissed Obama like some young whippersnapper. Obama on the other hand, was deferential (too much, in my opinion), looked and spoke directly to his opponent and made eye contact with the audience. The morning after, I watched all the morning shows (Today, Good Morning America, CBS Early Show) and all featured body language experts to analyze the debate. Well, guess who lost in that department? Since the debate, Obama has surged (McCain’s favorite word after POW) ahead in the polls.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *