puddonhead
06-07 06:22 PM
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. A house is much more than a mere investment. For people like us it adds another layer of complications
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
Personally I would wait till 2012 beginning to consider getting into Cali, Las Vegas, Florida markets. The neg-am/interest-only bubble (BusinessWeek Article (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/jun2008/bw2008065_526168.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)) is just beginning to burst with their interest rates resetting, and wont peak until late 2011. This bubble is just as big as the sub-prime one (in terms of dollar value - around USD 0.5 - 1.5 Trillion) and will probably have much higher default rate (north of 50% by all estimates I have seen so far). These loans were originated to make the high priced homes in these area affordable. So it will hit the middle class to aspirational neighborhoods the most - unlike the sub-primes, which mostly hit the lower income areas.
I don't mean to sound disheartening - just want to provide info and interpretation as I see it so that people can avoid getting into this trap.
Personally, I am also surprised/uncomfortable that the prices in the NY Metro Area has not come down so much even though all the indicators (rent/price ratio, affordability) are way off base and getting worse with rents heading south. I don't know how these ratios will correct themselves (the neg-am mess is unlikely to hit this area too much) - but my intuition tells me that it has to. If anybody more knowledgeable can add more insights then that will be great.
wallpaper Love Poems. Letters have a
Macaca
06-20 02:11 PM
Learning From Microsoft's Error, Google Builds a Lobbying Engine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902058.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/) Washington Post Staff Writer, June 20, 2007
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
snathan
09-27 11:35 AM
What would be the immediate impact on the GC...no matter who ever wins. Yes, its painful to wait in the long line. But I would prefer that rather than some one came to power and kills the EB community. What are the chances for that? I don’t expect them to reform anything...at least if they maintain the status quo...that would be fine. There is no immediate death. This is just my opinion. So guys don’t give me red dots.
2011 or even love poems has
matreen
07-13 07:26 PM
I think we should support this letter and push for it.
I understand IV is doing a great job towards our issues and at the same time CIS putting their efforts to come up with some kind of solutions and they are making changes to resolve the backlog issue.
CIS better understand that EB3 preference also backloged not only EB2 and required some attention. Why don't they inherit the left over visas for fiscal year to both catageries not only EB2 to balance movement. This is also a acceptable change if we fight in order to clear the backlog for both the catageries....EB3 can't be ignored 100%......we are also hoping and dreaming our future and can't live blindly by doing nothing....
Definatley we need IV support on this to have justice with EB3.
Thanks IV.
I understand IV is doing a great job towards our issues and at the same time CIS putting their efforts to come up with some kind of solutions and they are making changes to resolve the backlog issue.
CIS better understand that EB3 preference also backloged not only EB2 and required some attention. Why don't they inherit the left over visas for fiscal year to both catageries not only EB2 to balance movement. This is also a acceptable change if we fight in order to clear the backlog for both the catageries....EB3 can't be ignored 100%......we are also hoping and dreaming our future and can't live blindly by doing nothing....
Definatley we need IV support on this to have justice with EB3.
Thanks IV.
more...
SunnySurya
08-05 02:00 PM
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Oh my gosh..This much argument. I do not know the PD porting is law or rule. If it is law, one can not file suit against the amended law. But one can request the law maker to change. If it is a rule, one may do that. But it does not have any merit. It is waste of time.
PD porting, in theory, is very genuine. (may be not-genuine in many cases; just to cut-short the line or line jump by creating a EB2 job) So, one cannot challagne that. Here is why. A cook may have a PD 2001 in EB3. He has right to study PhD and apply in EB1 catagory, by poring PD. There is no violation of ehics here.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Oh my gosh..This much argument. I do not know the PD porting is law or rule. If it is law, one can not file suit against the amended law. But one can request the law maker to change. If it is a rule, one may do that. But it does not have any merit. It is waste of time.
PD porting, in theory, is very genuine. (may be not-genuine in many cases; just to cut-short the line or line jump by creating a EB2 job) So, one cannot challagne that. Here is why. A cook may have a PD 2001 in EB3. He has right to study PhD and apply in EB1 catagory, by poring PD. There is no violation of ehics here.
unitednations
03-26 05:29 PM
UN,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
more...
sledge_hammer
06-05 04:01 PM
A very simple, dumbed down calculation to see which one trumps the other, buying or renting:
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
2010 Love Letters in the Sand: The Love Poems of Khalil Gibran
pvadiga
09-30 09:26 AM
Well, this entire process of green card is being made so complicated for people who have education and constatly supporting the economy of this country. Illegal Immigrants are getting a cake walk
I came to U.S in August 2000, completed my Master's and with great difficulty of H1b sponsorship found a job for my qualification in Aerospace Industry. Though I had Master's and was eligible for EB2, my employer disagreed because they had to pay more. I started my EB3 process in Nov 2006 and filed for I-485 in July 2007 in the confusion. I fwas orced to switch job in Feb 2008 and had filed AC21. My I-140 got approved in Apr 2008. Due to the death of my father in Sep 08, I had to travel to India. I attended my H1b interviw on 18th Sep and still waiting for my Passport. There is some unexpected delay due to migration in system. I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.
My Struggle has been never ending for the past 8 years though I am contributing towards the progress of this country economically a tax payer and intellectualy as an Aerospace Engineer
We need to fight for this cause and voice our concern, which is in the benefit of both us and U.S
I came to U.S in August 2000, completed my Master's and with great difficulty of H1b sponsorship found a job for my qualification in Aerospace Industry. Though I had Master's and was eligible for EB2, my employer disagreed because they had to pay more. I started my EB3 process in Nov 2006 and filed for I-485 in July 2007 in the confusion. I fwas orced to switch job in Feb 2008 and had filed AC21. My I-140 got approved in Apr 2008. Due to the death of my father in Sep 08, I had to travel to India. I attended my H1b interviw on 18th Sep and still waiting for my Passport. There is some unexpected delay due to migration in system. I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.
My Struggle has been never ending for the past 8 years though I am contributing towards the progress of this country economically a tax payer and intellectualy as an Aerospace Engineer
We need to fight for this cause and voice our concern, which is in the benefit of both us and U.S
more...
mariner5555
04-09 10:51 PM
we've found that the more compelling arguments tend to be those related to US competitiveness. If I was to use the housing argument in a meeting, I would use it in a light hearted way while making a serious point.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
Mentioning it in light hearted way would help too when you have predictions like this (latest report) from International Monetary Fund.
------
House prices have already fallen by around 10% in the US by some measures, and the IMF says that they may be over-valued by more than 20% in the UK, Ireland and Spain.
It is forecasting further falls in US house prices of 14% to 20% this year.
---------
GC is definitely the main issue for atleast 10 of my friends (and I guess it is an issue for many others). our view is why invest in immovable assets while we are at the mercy of a govt agency.
ofcourse - I would guess that many of the govt advisors must have suggested the link between immigration and housing to the policy makers. in the end it is supply and demand.
there are other ways too ..US laws are influenced by lobbyists and I am sure there is a huge builders, realtors lobby ..maybe IV could explain the issue to them ..and in turn expect them to explain this issue to lawmakers ..
a quick note - I am not saying that if a person gets a GC then he will run and buy a house. but for many GC is the first thing that has to happen before he/she even starts to look around.
For most, common sense of justice is an issue, in which case housing can be brought up, but again, not an issue to focus on too much, more in the context of 'it is ironic that many of us want to buy houses but GC wait is what prohibits that, not the credit crunch'. Can be mentioned in passing, but not worth focusing on.
Mentioning it in light hearted way would help too when you have predictions like this (latest report) from International Monetary Fund.
------
House prices have already fallen by around 10% in the US by some measures, and the IMF says that they may be over-valued by more than 20% in the UK, Ireland and Spain.
It is forecasting further falls in US house prices of 14% to 20% this year.
---------
GC is definitely the main issue for atleast 10 of my friends (and I guess it is an issue for many others). our view is why invest in immovable assets while we are at the mercy of a govt agency.
ofcourse - I would guess that many of the govt advisors must have suggested the link between immigration and housing to the policy makers. in the end it is supply and demand.
there are other ways too ..US laws are influenced by lobbyists and I am sure there is a huge builders, realtors lobby ..maybe IV could explain the issue to them ..and in turn expect them to explain this issue to lawmakers ..
a quick note - I am not saying that if a person gets a GC then he will run and buy a house. but for many GC is the first thing that has to happen before he/she even starts to look around.
hair boyfriend sweet love poems
mariner5555
03-24 01:59 PM
True.
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
(my final thoughts ...)
well one point is clear - those who have a house will justify it and those who rent will justify the same.
I don't expect those who bought house to say that they made a mistake ..they have to justify (rightly) their decision even if they paid more. and I agree with them.
both have their valid points but from what I have observed quality of life actually goes down a little when you buy a house at inflated prices or buy a house beyond yr means (as both hus / wife have to work etc etc ..many even end up cooking food once a week - if u know what I mean).
I am from bombay -- and actually we had more fun in the buildings / apartments because you end up spending more time outdoors with friends. now ofcourse people will say they stayed in bungalows in smaller cities and they had fun too ..and I agree. similarly I know few people / friends who bought houses here (in USA) in such isolated / wealthy surroundings that their kid / kids have no friends !! ,
similarly other in a hurry brought a house so far from work / city that they are in a soup !! some of their wives simply cannot drive or will take years to learn or they have only one car ..the net result - husband goes to work from 8 to 7 (including transit time) - kids end up at home (ofcourse they run up and down the stairs - watching TV). whereas in an apt - the chances that you would find someone in similar position is more (i.e. kids of same age who can play together is higher). maybe when they grow and go to school - things will be better -- I guess in the end it is personal.
...also just because someone buys a house - doesnt necessarily mean higher std of living and simarly those who rent - it doesnt mean that they have lower std of living ...in the end it is personal decision !! but in present scenario --- looking before leaping definitely makes sense. rather than buying a house quickly - just because everyone else is doing the same ..).
BTW there are lots of articles out there which explains why renting is not throwing money away !!
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
(my final thoughts ...)
well one point is clear - those who have a house will justify it and those who rent will justify the same.
I don't expect those who bought house to say that they made a mistake ..they have to justify (rightly) their decision even if they paid more. and I agree with them.
both have their valid points but from what I have observed quality of life actually goes down a little when you buy a house at inflated prices or buy a house beyond yr means (as both hus / wife have to work etc etc ..many even end up cooking food once a week - if u know what I mean).
I am from bombay -- and actually we had more fun in the buildings / apartments because you end up spending more time outdoors with friends. now ofcourse people will say they stayed in bungalows in smaller cities and they had fun too ..and I agree. similarly I know few people / friends who bought houses here (in USA) in such isolated / wealthy surroundings that their kid / kids have no friends !! ,
similarly other in a hurry brought a house so far from work / city that they are in a soup !! some of their wives simply cannot drive or will take years to learn or they have only one car ..the net result - husband goes to work from 8 to 7 (including transit time) - kids end up at home (ofcourse they run up and down the stairs - watching TV). whereas in an apt - the chances that you would find someone in similar position is more (i.e. kids of same age who can play together is higher). maybe when they grow and go to school - things will be better -- I guess in the end it is personal.
...also just because someone buys a house - doesnt necessarily mean higher std of living and simarly those who rent - it doesnt mean that they have lower std of living ...in the end it is personal decision !! but in present scenario --- looking before leaping definitely makes sense. rather than buying a house quickly - just because everyone else is doing the same ..).
BTW there are lots of articles out there which explains why renting is not throwing money away !!
more...
gapala
12-18 01:00 PM
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
How is that they are justified killing innocent public who is not even aware or connected to any of the problems that you have mentioned in your post?
This is that age old argument and justification for terrorism... Oppressed/suppressed etc... we heard it enough. There is no place on planet earth where muslims enjoy freedom like in India. Reservation in premier education institutions/jobs. subsidized loans for housing etc. They are the only group who even have government (tax payers) funded flights to Macca every year. Still they resort to killing innocent public who are no way connected to the problems that you mentioned in the post. They are not even aware of these problems. (Wrong but easy targets).
How could you justify these crazy folks?
They intimidate people everywhere Asia/Europe and revolt against the civic society and institutions, reject the constitution demanding to allow them to follow Sharia and not the constitution. They forget that they are in that country by their own free CHOICE. They are not forced to stay there right?. They were from places where sharia is followed, they moved, due to what ever reason to civic societies and now they would NOT follow the constitution, where is the oppression here? Its their choice. They just create mental barrier for themself in the name of perverted belief system and reject civic society to look different. Its rediculous.
Again not all the folks in that group support them, but the irony is that folks who are in at the peak of that group have this perverted belief and straight forward folks / good folks keeps mum. Due to fear?
How is that they are justified killing innocent public who is not even aware or connected to any of the problems that you have mentioned in your post?
This is that age old argument and justification for terrorism... Oppressed/suppressed etc... we heard it enough. There is no place on planet earth where muslims enjoy freedom like in India. Reservation in premier education institutions/jobs. subsidized loans for housing etc. They are the only group who even have government (tax payers) funded flights to Macca every year. Still they resort to killing innocent public who are no way connected to the problems that you mentioned in the post. They are not even aware of these problems. (Wrong but easy targets).
How could you justify these crazy folks?
They intimidate people everywhere Asia/Europe and revolt against the civic society and institutions, reject the constitution demanding to allow them to follow Sharia and not the constitution. They forget that they are in that country by their own free CHOICE. They are not forced to stay there right?. They were from places where sharia is followed, they moved, due to what ever reason to civic societies and now they would NOT follow the constitution, where is the oppression here? Its their choice. They just create mental barrier for themself in the name of perverted belief system and reject civic society to look different. Its rediculous.
Again not all the folks in that group support them, but the irony is that folks who are in at the peak of that group have this perverted belief and straight forward folks / good folks keeps mum. Due to fear?
hot Ultimate Love Letters are for
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:44 PM
A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
more...
house love letters or love poems
skakodker
12-31 11:40 AM
Thank you for your message smisachu. I noticed some other senior members red-dotted me! A red dot or two will never dampen my support albeit mainly phone and mail and enthusiasm for IV's and our cause.
In response, I believe that violence is the ego rearing its head in response to itself.
These so-called "camps" are collections of tents and basic infrastructure. Bombing them will achieve, at best, a brief lull (if that) until a new camp is set up and staffed by the hundreds and thousands of misguided personnel that comprise these extremist factions from all over the world.
At worst, a unilateral assault on Pakistan will result in a nuclear war - the ultimate Pandora's box. What better result could the extremists desire?
Is there not a better way that involves improving the lot of all and in doing so, dimming the lure of extremist ideaologies?
I am not saying that we musn't defend ourselves. That is our right. I am proposing that we first address the beast within - the one whose ineffectiveness permitted this attack to occur in the first place. Coming up with ways to achieve this could be our primary intent.
There is plenty of scope to improve our intelligence services, training, and even basic equipment (our cops arrived with .303 rifles that wouldn't fire!) - but the long term fix for any problem will always be one that starts from within and works it way to the without.
Peace to all.
In response, I believe that violence is the ego rearing its head in response to itself.
These so-called "camps" are collections of tents and basic infrastructure. Bombing them will achieve, at best, a brief lull (if that) until a new camp is set up and staffed by the hundreds and thousands of misguided personnel that comprise these extremist factions from all over the world.
At worst, a unilateral assault on Pakistan will result in a nuclear war - the ultimate Pandora's box. What better result could the extremists desire?
Is there not a better way that involves improving the lot of all and in doing so, dimming the lure of extremist ideaologies?
I am not saying that we musn't defend ourselves. That is our right. I am proposing that we first address the beast within - the one whose ineffectiveness permitted this attack to occur in the first place. Coming up with ways to achieve this could be our primary intent.
There is plenty of scope to improve our intelligence services, training, and even basic equipment (our cops arrived with .303 rifles that wouldn't fire!) - but the long term fix for any problem will always be one that starts from within and works it way to the without.
Peace to all.
tattoo Love Poems Quotes Letters
validIV
06-26 02:47 PM
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
more...
pictures Writing Letters cartoon 1
imvoice1234
01-08 12:36 PM
Muslims are cowerds. They never come out in open and attack. They take the means of Jihad etc....
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
No matter how highly educated they are. Their basic nature remains the same. Every Muslim country u name it has a problem with either their neighbouts. They do not belive in harmony an co existance. surprisingly they also fight among themselves.
Read the link below on how mean they are.
http://www.rense.com/general29/FAHD.HTM
Now this article states the Israel - Palestine conflict clearly.
God bless Israel. God has always been with Israel.
dresses Many of the love letters they
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
more...
makeup Love Poems
qasleuth
03-23 04:51 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
OK..people..the END OF SPECULATION..
I got the email..here are the details asked for..
and It appears, the email (@dhs.gov) came from someone who was working in the local office where our file is sitting..
1. current resume
2. copy of degree(s)
3. W2s since 2000
4. information relating to your first entry into the United States with your H1B visa (copy of I-94, copy of passport � admission stamp and biographic page, etc)
5. date of initial employment in the United States (per our conversation this was through XXX Company for a contract with ABC Inc)
6. copy of income tax returns from 2000 to the present (all that are available)
7. copies of work contracts since 2000
Now..should I send or hire a lawyer..what should be the best course..I have all details..except..work contracts from previous employers..currents one I can get
Any suggestions please?:mad:
OK..people..the END OF SPECULATION..
I got the email..here are the details asked for..
and It appears, the email (@dhs.gov) came from someone who was working in the local office where our file is sitting..
1. current resume
2. copy of degree(s)
3. W2s since 2000
4. information relating to your first entry into the United States with your H1B visa (copy of I-94, copy of passport � admission stamp and biographic page, etc)
5. date of initial employment in the United States (per our conversation this was through XXX Company for a contract with ABC Inc)
6. copy of income tax returns from 2000 to the present (all that are available)
7. copies of work contracts since 2000
Now..should I send or hire a lawyer..what should be the best course..I have all details..except..work contracts from previous employers..currents one I can get
Any suggestions please?:mad:
girlfriend love in poems amp; letters.
Rolling_Flood
08-05 09:03 AM
If you don't like my stand, fair enough.
Neither you nor anyone else can stop me from taking legal counsel on this issue and going to the courts if i feel this porting thing is illegal in a sense.
Please refrain from making cheap remarks like the ones you made towards the end of the post. They serve to highlight your issues more than mine. I am content with the EB2 folks who have already PM-ed me and we will, for sure, take this forward.
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA.
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is EB2. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system / process, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
Neither you nor anyone else can stop me from taking legal counsel on this issue and going to the courts if i feel this porting thing is illegal in a sense.
Please refrain from making cheap remarks like the ones you made towards the end of the post. They serve to highlight your issues more than mine. I am content with the EB2 folks who have already PM-ed me and we will, for sure, take this forward.
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA.
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is EB2. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system / process, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
hairstyles love poems
unitednations
03-25 01:11 PM
UN I think you are hyping up the current situation too much.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
I'm not one of those alarmists because many "people can't sleep" when they have immigration issues.
Howeve; I very rarely give very specific examples, or post the RFE;s, denials because USCIS/DOL do go around and peruse the internet looking for information.
Within IV there is a number of postings of h-1b denials.
You will see plenty more. If a company responds to the rfe with a middle man purchase order; denial will come quickly; if purchase order is in different location of LCA (LCA has to be certified covering the work location prior to filing of h-1b) then verry quick denial.
However; in most other cases it is taking vermont service center long tim to send rfe and then long time to deny after response to rfe.
Check out greg siskind blog; where he reported another lawyer got internal memo of how to scrutiinize h-1b's for staffing compoanies; check matthew oh blog from last year when he reported massive rfe's coming fom vermont service center.
I don't take things lightly. I'm pretty plugged in as to what is going on. I started discussing this last year and told peopl with extensions that they better file it early just to preserve more options if something should go wrong.
check around with your companies, friends, etc.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
I'm not one of those alarmists because many "people can't sleep" when they have immigration issues.
Howeve; I very rarely give very specific examples, or post the RFE;s, denials because USCIS/DOL do go around and peruse the internet looking for information.
Within IV there is a number of postings of h-1b denials.
You will see plenty more. If a company responds to the rfe with a middle man purchase order; denial will come quickly; if purchase order is in different location of LCA (LCA has to be certified covering the work location prior to filing of h-1b) then verry quick denial.
However; in most other cases it is taking vermont service center long tim to send rfe and then long time to deny after response to rfe.
Check out greg siskind blog; where he reported another lawyer got internal memo of how to scrutiinize h-1b's for staffing compoanies; check matthew oh blog from last year when he reported massive rfe's coming fom vermont service center.
I don't take things lightly. I'm pretty plugged in as to what is going on. I started discussing this last year and told peopl with extensions that they better file it early just to preserve more options if something should go wrong.
check around with your companies, friends, etc.
nogc_noproblem
08-26 09:27 PM
Simple Questions, Complicated Answers
Why does monosyllabic have five syllables?
Why are there interstate highways in Hawaii?
Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together?
Why do scientists call it research when looking for something new?
Why do they call it a building? It looks like they're finished. Why isn't it a built?
Why is it when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
If price and worth mean the same thing, why priceless and worthless are opposites?
Is there another word for synonym?
Is it possible to be totally partial?
Why does monosyllabic have five syllables?
Why are there interstate highways in Hawaii?
Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together?
Why do scientists call it research when looking for something new?
Why do they call it a building? It looks like they're finished. Why isn't it a built?
Why is it when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
If price and worth mean the same thing, why priceless and worthless are opposites?
Is there another word for synonym?
Is it possible to be totally partial?
purgan
01-28 10:44 AM
what has time to put 30-40 comments. Let the junkies who like him waste their money reading his crap...
No comments:
Post a Comment