What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[yataoy]

---

example A: kon ang income sa pamilya 100,000 pesos kada bulan, unya naay amahan, inahan, og duha ka bata, sa ato pa, 4 ka tawo ang pamilya, ang "per capita" income sa pamilya mao'y 25,000 per month!

WRONG AGAIN.

It's always tempting to make a simplistic assumption that the difficulties of raising many children translate into poverty for a NATION. But that is precisely what is NOT shown by the evidence.

bangaa nimo oy. it is a very simple issue but you cannot understnd it! per capita income tells you whos poor or rich.Â* Ang per capita raba sa Pilipinas puerteng gamaya. It is the same concept, dong!

Basa pa ka'g tae, dong. Pasabot diay jud nimo wala ka kasabot!

A is richer than B.Â* Per capita income of family A (P25,000 per person) very high. Per capita income of family B (P 500) is very low. Who is poorer? B!

Unya, makalalis ka ana?

You seem to forget that when you aggregate people together, you have economies of scale, which is not as clear in small groups like a single family (or even several families). Aggregated groups result in mass production and mass markets. They also result in more efficient distribution of resources such as power, water, communications, data, health services, etc.

Ultimately, what you have is production which is greater than the simple sum of what persons could have generated on their own. That is how the indsutrial revolution camem about: when people gathered en masse into cities. Mass production is impossible without high population densities. Sustaining it without population growth is also difficult.

nagbulatik ang bakakon ay.

for your info: bakakon = liar.

Your simplistic math is a total failure. Were you asleep when they taught Econiomics 101 in school?Â*

moderators ga insulto na pod si mannyamador diri. husto ani niya kulata jud!Â*

By the way, as the moderators have stated, the primary language in these discussion threads is ENGLISH. I don't spoeak Cebuano. So unless you just want to discuss with OTHER people (and not me), please post in ENGLISH.

This is a cebuano group. it is for cebuanos and people who respect cebuanos and our culture. If you want to be in this group, you must respect cebuanos.

No Manila superiority complex.

Otherwise, kulatahon g'yud ka sa mga tawo dinhi sa Sugbu, kay dili mi ganahan og hambugero!Â*

[mannyamador]

it is a very simple issue but you cannot understnd it! per capita income tells you whos poor or rich.

But it DOESN'T tell you what causes it. Economics 101, kid.

nagbulatik ang bakakon ay. for your info: bakakon = liar.

Wow, what a display of intelligence. Maybe you should come up with a REAL ARGUMENT.

No Manila superiority complex.

Changing topic? Have you run out of any REAL arguments to prove your point?

[mannyamador]

Debunking the Myths of over Population (Part I)
http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control2

According to the Lagman Report, there are 58 million of Filipinos who dwell below the poverty line. There exists a very malignant social malaise and to be able to prescribe the right remedies, its symptoms should be properly diagnosed, otherwise, more adverse consequences shall take place.

The question we would like to raise is "Why do we encounter economic difficulties?" Or simply expressed, why are we poor? The Philippines is said to be one of the countries in the world richly endowed with natural resources.

Let us look at these figures.

Causes of economic difficulties leading to mass poverty and hunger

1. Foreign debts servicing

More than 60 % of our budget goes to payment of foreign debt which has already increased to $34 billion. This huge foreign payment has resulted in budgetary deficits amounting to $613 million. The Lagman Report shows that most of these loans were incurred by the late Pres... Marcos during his despotic rule; 417 private corporations pass on their P417 billion loans to tax payers; 94 corporations left to Central Bank their P300-billion private corporate debts.

What is repugnant about foreign debts is that the bulk of revenues collected are being used to pay off debts and only a tackle goes to basic services such as health, food and nutrition. Moreover, we are forced to yield to unequal terms and conditions of the World Bank and the IMF in order to get fresh loans, a large chunk of which goes back to debt-vicing.

In 1992, the Philippines paid P113 billion foreign debt which consisted of 62% of revenues collected from taxes, fees, and earnings from Treasury Bills. The total collection was P180 billion, P6.96 billion lower than the agreement with the IMF. This agreement was made in return for fresh loans. Since September, 1992, P86.1 billion went to foreign debt servicing. The huge payment resulted to budgetary deficit. Lawmakers fault the government for surrendering to IMF/World Bank control. Documents obtained from the Department of Budget and Management show that most of the government expenses went to loan payments instead of productive programs. PD 1177 automatically sets aside funds for loan payments.

2. Unequal distribution of land and other resources

Only 20 % of our population own and control, legally or fraudulently 80% of agricultural lands. In Negros, 95% of sugarlands are owned by only 3% of the population; in Mindanao, the prime lands are owned by close to 130 corporations, 52 of which are multinationals who own 1/3 of the total land area of the island.

3. Undercultivation of agricultural lands

Of the 30 million hectares total land area of the country only about 13 million hectares are actually cultivated. If these lands are cultivated they could supply the food requirements of 82 million Filipinos and if modem farming technologies are applied and the production per hectare is increased, these lands can support even 122 million Filipinos. Of the 7, 100 islands, only 730 are inhabited.

4. Smuggling, graft and corruption, pilferage

Revenue losses reach P88 billion yearly by tax evasion, smuggling and non-payment of taxes on illegal exportation. P5 billion is lost to illegal loggers; pi billion is lost to electricity pilferage. Among these pilfers are huge manufacturing firms belonging to the top 1000 corporations. 45 super rich families in Forbes Park, a professional basketball player, an actress, a senator, a foreign embassy. MERALCO collects from all of us this loss in terms of "systems losses.

5. Import liberalization, deregulation of prices of commodities and trade monopolies.

Philippine government trade policies are geared towards the protection of traditional and big names in the business sector. The existence of powerful cartels which manipulate prices of commodities, create artificial shortage of goods like the Big Ten Rice Cartel and the Binondo Central Bank attests to this fact.

E.O. No. 8 lifts all qualitative and quantitative restrictions on around 3,000 imported items. Its implementation has led to billion peso losses for over 6 million rice and corn planters and 60,000 workers in the P64 million rice and corn industry. Aside from rice and corn farmers, those who are affected are copra, banana, cassava meal producers, molasses and fish meal producers

While most ASEAN countries provide incentives just to attract private sector investment, most Philippine government policies are geared towards protection of monopolies that hampers competitiveness. Examples of local industries affected by the monopoly are food-processing and fruit exportation. Food processing buys so much from agriculture where over 60% of the population and 2/3 of those below the poverty line are based. Growth in food exports will mean growth in agriculture, more jobs and higher income in the countryside's.

When an economic system is capital intensive, the tendency is to protect monopolies resulting in the demise of competitors in the market. Moreover, when the ruling elite who also controls the country's riches invest their profits and incomes in foreign banks, they divest the country of much needed resources for local job creating industries.

6. Misappropriation of funds at the expense of basic social services

• 6.1 Family Planning: P5.3 billion are earmarked for the purchase of contraceptives, condoms, pill, sterilization and abortion gadgets. This amount could be used to fund delivery of basic social services such as socialized housing, environmental protection, creation of job opportunities and delivery of health services.
• 6.2 Only.04% of the national budget is allotted to housing when in fact 680,000 units are neededpar annually.
• 6.3 Military spending 6.4 Debt-servicing

[yataoy]

it is a very simple issue but you cannot understnd it! per capita income tells you whos poor or rich.

But it DOESN'T tell you what causes it. Economics 101, kid.

buang man diay ka. That's not the question. It is "is there a link between population and poverty." I show that there is.

But I also say why people are poor before: because some are lazy. (tapulan)Â* and also some are not very skill or capable. So they earn less or have no job.

nagbulatik ang bakakon ay. for your info: bakakon = liar.

Wow, what a display of intelligence. Maybe you should come up with a REAL ARGUMENT.

Mga higala, nakakita na jud ta tanan sa batasan niining mannyamador.

pwerteng bastusa. Ato na gani siyang gi-welcome dinhi sa atuang teritoryo aron makakuyog siya nato, apan kay iyang gi-abusar ang iyang welcome kay mientras maayo ta'g trato padulong niya, iyang gipagawas kanato ang iyang batasan nga puerteng bati-a og pwerteng bastusa.

Walay respeto. Sigi lag panginsulto. Og kon kanus-a siya mawad-an og argumento, mag-cut-and-paste na lang siya og mosamot og panginsulto.

Dili na ni maayo, mga higala.

Kulang jud si mannyamador og kulata.

No Manila superiority complex.

Changing topic? Have you run out of any REAL arguments to prove your point?Â*

You lose the argument already liar. You have no answer about example A versus example B.

I showed that number of people (also known as "population") is link to poverty.

But what you do is you lose your temperÂ* and throw tantrumsÂ*

And yet you insult the people who belong here while you are an alien.

Dili ka taga-dinhi, dong. Outsider ka. You dont have a right to insult us because this is our online teritory.

Kulang jud kag kulataÂ*

[mannyamador]

buang man diay ka. That's not the question. It is "is there a link between population and poverty." I show that there is.

You have failed to show any causal link whatsoever. As I already proved, small supply problems do not necessarily apply when you have economies of scale.

You lose the argument already liar.

Ooohh.... Engaging in name-calling? That/'s usually an indication that you have LOST the argument.
Stick to the issues. Try to come up with an intelligent argument.

Ah, but I see you're banned already. Oh well... I warned you.

showed that number of people (also known as "population") is link to poverty.

Anyone can make a claim. You have to prove it. Do you now what a causal link is?
What about economies of scale? What can you tell me about that concept?

[mannyamador]

Debunking the Myths of over Population (Part 2)

Causes of environmental ruin

It is a well-known fact that the world's pollutants are products of industrialized countries, for instance, toxic wastes, acid rain, etc. Hence, it cannot be said that it is population growth that is solely responsible for pollution of the environment. The following data point to the fact that it is multinational corporations whose plants and factories situated on Philippine soil that greatly cause environmental ruin.

The Non-Aligned Movement of Nations like Cuba and Libya lashed at Western nations for foreign interference that starts with human rights and environmental issues. It insisted that nations have the right to use their resources. They urged developed countries not to use environmental concerns as an excuse for interference in the internal affairs of developing countries nor should they be used to introduce conditionalities in aid.

Let us examine these facts:

1. Toxic wastes disgorged by huge factories

Millions of tons of poisonous lead and mercury mostly from oil refineries and chemical factories are excreted daily causing considerable ruin on marine life. Of the 400 rivers in the country, 80 are heavily polluted and 40 are virtually dead due to poisoning. Industrialization is the culprit.par par

2. Too much use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides

Twenty-two provinces suffer soil degradation due to massive use of fertilizers. Among these are Ilocos Sur, La Union, Misamis, Cotabato, Bukidnon.

3. Logging, legal and illegal, mining operations and quarrying

There are 480 logging concessionaires majority of them foreigners who have raked in $2 billion profit in the last 30 years. Trillion metric tons of silt have already accumulated in the river beds of Pangasinan due to mining operations in the Cordilleras. The floods that hit Ormoc and Nueva Ecija sometime ago which claimed more than 4,000 lives can be traced to illegal logging.

4. Commercial fishing and poaching:

Annually foreign poachers haul 620,000 metric tons of fish from Philippine waters without paying the government anything.

5. Farm conversion:

Farms have become smaller because they have been used for other purposes other than farming giving rise to landlessness and food shortage.

6. Consumerism:

People especially the rich consume more than what they need.

7. Export cropping or high value farming:

Priority crops are cutflowers, asparagus, rubber (the ELB Products of London is putting up a huge condoms factory at EPZA Bataan and it will utilize local raw materials), corn, cassava, fruits, and other export crops. Fish was abundant and cheap until the Japanese, American, and Europeans discovered them. Today, the poor man's galunggong pegs a price of P40- 50 per kilo.

Senator Wigberto Tañada makes a projection that . . . "by the year 2000, our population is estimated to reach 75 million. That is a potentially lame domestic market that can sustain the expansion of domestic industries especially wane goods or consumption industries. However. rampant land conversion that is happening due to the sleepy implementation of the agrarian reform program is disempowering majority of our people. The economic liberalization program. All in the name of global competitiveness could very well sink our local industries." Even Professor Renato Constantino protests, "selling to an abstract global market is given emphasis than selling to a population of 65 million people."

[migzz]

ok proof? this are actual data...

Availability of Natural Resources per Person:

China India World Average United States

Arable Land per person in square meters 1,000 1,095 3,200 9,733

Arable land per person 31x31 meters 33x33 meters 56x56 meters 98x98 meters

Forest area per capita in square meters 1,200 661 9,067 12,467

Grain production per capita in kilograms 360 223 310 1,451

Annual renewable Water
Resources per capita in cubic meters 2.47 2.17 7.69 9.94

Note: 1000 square meters is an area 31 meters by 31 meters, or about 100 feet by 100 feet. China and India have about 2 billion people living on this much arable land per person. They are near to the limit of feeding themselves. They cannot increase their population without going hungry or importing food to make up the deficit. The U.S. is about 10 times this value. its a young country in comparison to them. But if they double, double, double, which could happen in 90 years if they continue at the present rate, the United States population will be at the limits imposed by arable land and water just like many other countries are today.

our population growth is of exponential growth.... example: my cat has 7 kittens, each of them has 7 kittens, in 2 years becomes 49 kittens, in three years becomes 350, in 7 years becomes 1/2 million cats.

Exponential growth causes all animals to quickly reach the sustainable limits of their environment. An example of this is the 10 million dogs and cats which are turned into animal shelters every year.

The same laws apply to humans. Human population will quickly grow up to the starvation limit.

The laws of exponential growth apply to all races, white, black, yellow and red. And the consequences of exponential growth apply to all races. It is not a question of race. The problem is universal to all humanity. We are all in the same boat. We are all on Spaceship Earth. We are in danger of overpopulating our spaceship. We of all races must understand the problem, must understand what the world will be like if we allow the present trends to continue, and we must understand and act together toward the solution to limiting the problem. The goal of limiting population growth is not racist. It can be seen all over the world that countries and cities and communities that have the highest growth rates have the highest levels of poverty. It is in the best interest all ethnic groups to limit their growth to gain a higher level of prosperity. Minorities and majority races must ask themselves, what is our goal? Is the goal greater numbers and thereby more political power, but it also brings more crowding, more competition for existing resources, and less resources per person. Or is the goal quality of life? Quality of life is more quickly achieved by lowering birth rates.

We are getting hungrier: In the last 25 years, food production rose by over 2.5% per cent annually but demand for food has grown by 3% a year as populations have gone up.

Rain forest destroyed = 50 acres per minute. Example: In forty years, as Guatemala's population increased from 3 million to 9 million, 65% of the country's original forest cover was destroyed for slash and burn agriculture. At current rates, the remainder will disappear in 25 years.

Desertification of grasslands by overgrazing of livestock, overcultivation, improper irrigation techniques, deforestation, woodcutting and burning is a huge problem.

Percentage of Earth's landmass suffering desertification = 29%.

Time required for nature to form 1 inch of topsoil = 200 to 1000 years.

The aquifer under the Great Plains of the U.S. drops 6 feet annually.

Historians attribute loss of topsoil, water supplies, forests and other environmental degradation to contribute to the decline of many civilizations in the past.

[mannyamador]

Note: 1000 square meters is an area 31 meters by 31 meters, or about 100 feet by 100 feet. China and India have about 2 billion people living on this much arable land per person. They are near to the limit of feeding themselves.

Where in the world did you get this silly conclusion? China and India are NOWHERE near the limit of feeding themselves. Their localized shortages are caused by bad governance (especially in China), not by any lack of arable land.

India ALONE using CURRENT TECHNOLOGY can actually produce enough to feed the entire world! The US destroys enough food (to keep prices up) to totally eradicate hunger in Africa.

You have totally misinterpreted the land and production data (and the raw data is also open to question). You also seem to forget that production per square meter increases with better technology and efficiency. That renders your "proof" totally wrong.

our population growth is of exponential growth.... example: my cat has 7 kittens, each of them has 7 kittens, in 2 years becomes 49 kittens, in three years becomes 350, in 7 years becomes 1/2 million cats.

Your reasoning is hilariously faulty. You seem to forget that cats DIE!!! So do human beings. What kind of silly math is this? How can anyone with half a brain forget about this most basic fact?

The same laws apply to humans. Human population will quickly grow up to the starvation limit.

The world population has NEVER reached starvartion limit. NOT ONCE. In fact, world food prouction has consistently outpaced population growth. See "Overpopulation Myths" (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdint21.html) where it noted that:

  "It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources, since 
  food production continues to exceed population growth and non-renewable 
  resources become more plentiful each year as new sources are found."

Exponential growth is a MYTH. It totally ignores the fact that animals DIE (unfortunately, human beings are ecceptionally good at finding ways to kill each other off too).

By the way, in its "Global Population Profile: 2002", the U.S. Census Bureau noted that global population growth peaked over a decade ago, and that birth rates are falling at an alarming rate, one that is unprecedented in human history. Even the UN Population Division has conclusively predicted that global population will not only peak, it will decline (with possibly disastrous consequences).

History has shown time and again that shortages are most often caused NOT by population growth but by other factors such as greed, mismanagement, bad governance, injustice, war, etc. You also cited poor farming practices, improper irrigation, etc. Well guess what? Population control solves NONE of these.

Find some real proof.

[mannyamador]

The data contradicts any hysterical predictions about "exponentail growth" overtaking food production or anything else for that matter.

The Fizzling Population Bomb
U.N. Report Points to Slowing of Growth
(http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=67670)

NEW YORK, MARCH 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- World population growth continues
to SLOW DOWN, with a projected figure of 9.1 billion in 2050, up from
today's 6.5 billion. The latest forecasts were published Feb. 24 by the
Population Division of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social
Affairs

Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels
http://www.lifenews.com/nat397.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A report released Monday by the Census
Bureau shows that world population growth is SLOWING TO DANGEROUS
LEVELS. In its report, "Global Population Profile: 2002," the Census Bureau
notes that the 74 million people added to the world's population in 2002
were significantly fewer than the high of 87 million people added in
1989-1990. The growth rate was a meager 1.2 percent, down from the high of
2.2 percent in 1963-64.

[migzz]

Your reasoning is hilariously faulty. You seem to forget that cats DIE!!!Â* Â*So do human beings. What kind of silly math is this? How can anyone with half a brain forget about this most basic fact?

is that how u interpret it? it seems that ur brain is smaller than mine... cats wont have the technology humans will have... if ure silly enough to just die by the time u get 40...then ure an idiot... of course humans will use technology to prolong its life... cure cancer,diseases, AIDS, etc... and because of that... u can extend ure freakin miserable life without clean water to drink... dirty ocean... choking air... my goodness how close minded u are...

India ALONE using CURRENT TECHNOLOGY can actually produce enough to feed the entire world! The US destroys enough food (to keep prices up) to totally eradicate hunger in Africa.

You have totally misinterpreted the land and production data (and the raw data is also open to question). You also seem to forget that production per square meter increases with better technology and efficiency. That renders your "proof" totally wrong.

yeah right... dream on dude... tell that to the people of india so that they may feed us all... do u actually believe technology can bring us to perfection? keep the dream alive and tell the US to conserve enough food to eradicate hunger in africa... and while ure at it tell UN we have no problem with the environment because u all are bad managers of our resources.... the data i presented are the realities... ure telling me the fantasies...

History has shown time and again that shortages are most often caused NOT by population growth but by other factors such as greed, mismanagement, bad governance, injustice, war, etc. You also cited poor farming practices, improper irrigation, etc. Well guess what? Population control solves NONE of these.

Find some real proof.

The world's population 'boom' is not a result of an increase in birth rates, but rather a decrease in death rates. Today more infants and children are surviving into adulthood, while adults are living longer. Since the earth's resources are finite, population must stop growing somehow. Fortunately, birth rates are declining, because no one wants to increase death rates. However, population momentum (the 'boom' of young people who are beginning their child-bearing years), and the agonizing slowness with which birth rates are coming down, means the population is still increasing.

In the meantime, modern medicine is allowing people to live even longer - causing quite a dilemna: will humankind reach a point where having children is to be discouraged, even to the point of one child or no children families? What will the world be like with fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly people?

Some people do not realize that the earth's resources are finite. Or they believe that God or technology will take care of it. They propose a giant pyramid scheme to continue to produce young people who would take care of the old people - leaving the question of who is going to take care of the young people when they get old?

Many think that families should be large so that the children can take care of the parents in their old age. They who think so overlook the fact that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children.