hpandey
06-25 04:13 PM
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
I agree with you . Most of the people in this thread against home ownership are thinking that house prices are going to keep on falling and interest rates are going to be this low forever based on front page news articles.
I think its time for people to realize that the housing bubble burst in 2007 and we are already two years into it . The people who brought houses in the period of 2003 - 2007 suffered since they bought when the bubble was peaking but in the last two years the price correction has happened and in most good areas the prices are not falling anymore.
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
wallpaper the iPod touch has proven
validIV
06-05 02:01 PM
This is your justification for renting? Your 1300 goes to that owners mortgage. You are paying so that he can own the property you live in. I would not be surprised if he has multiple condos renting to others like you.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
damialok
03-28 01:18 PM
Thanks for explaining the terms. You can go over 80% on the first loan but the lender will ask for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance). Which is around 1% of the loan. To skirt around it, mortgage brokers break up the loan into first and second(80%+10%+10% down). This avoids the PMI and helps the buyer qualify for a bigger loan/house. Also PMI premiums are not tax-deductible.
2011 iPod touch 4 game screen
rsdang
08-11 04:44 PM
Lesson 1:
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.
The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, "I'll give you $800 to drop that towel, "
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs.
When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, "Who was that?"
"It was Bob the next door neighbor," she replies.
"Great," the husband says, "did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?"
Moral of the story
If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time,you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
*********
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, "I'll give each of you just one wish."
"Me first! Me first!" says the admin clerk. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, without a care in the world."
Puff! She's gone.
"Me next! Me next!" says the sales rep. "I want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.."
Puff! He's gone.
"OK, you're up," the Genie says to the manager.
The manager says, "I want those two back in the office after lunch."
Moral of the story
Always let your boss have the first say.
*********
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing?"
The eagle answered: "Sure , why not."
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
Moral of the story
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
*********
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey,"but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull.
They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
Moral of the story
BullShit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
*********
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter.It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate.
Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him..
Morals of this story
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend..
(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth
shut!
Where is lesson 2?
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.
The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, "I'll give you $800 to drop that towel, "
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs.
When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, "Who was that?"
"It was Bob the next door neighbor," she replies.
"Great," the husband says, "did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?"
Moral of the story
If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time,you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
*********
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, "I'll give each of you just one wish."
"Me first! Me first!" says the admin clerk. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, without a care in the world."
Puff! She's gone.
"Me next! Me next!" says the sales rep. "I want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.."
Puff! He's gone.
"OK, you're up," the Genie says to the manager.
The manager says, "I want those two back in the office after lunch."
Moral of the story
Always let your boss have the first say.
*********
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing?"
The eagle answered: "Sure , why not."
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
Moral of the story
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
*********
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey,"but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull.
They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
Moral of the story
BullShit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
*********
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter.It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate.
Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him..
Morals of this story
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend..
(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth
shut!
Where is lesson 2?
more...
gotgc?
12-17 10:46 PM
It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.
It is very true..and it is fact...why is that all terrorists are muslims...something is wrong ...muslims need to come forward....
It is very true..and it is fact...why is that all terrorists are muslims...something is wrong ...muslims need to come forward....
akred
08-06 01:26 PM
Seems to me that the problem as usual is that too many people qualify for EB2 thus slowing down "genuine" cases.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
more...
Macaca
12-30 04:19 PM
But today, as the year ends, the netroots activists who adored Reid at the start of the new Congress have begun turning on him, musing out loud about encouraging senators to oust him as leader. They complained that Reid's Senate caved - allowing continued tax breaks for oil companies, approving a new attorney general who wouldn't call waterboarding torture, breaking the pay-as-you go promise by approving a tax break without a tax hike on the rich.
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
2010 Fans I have an iPod Touch 4
logiclife
11-09 02:01 PM
I wouldnt be too upset over Lou Dobbs' irrelevant editorials.
Its going to be crying time for Lou Dobbs and his ilk.
That includes:
Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and Rush Limbaugh.
All of them - however Lou Dobbs leads in that pack - cannot live with the probability that so many illegals are going to get amnesty now that their favorite party has lost majority.
And you have to hand to Lou. He has been a harsh critic of 109th congress and Bush. Very harsh. But not once he has said that maybe, just maybe voting democratic in 2006 may change the bahavior and performance of congress. So after long long editorials, his recommendation was what? Vote for who? Independents who werent running or close to getting anywhere? And after the Government he criticized so much has lost control, I dont see him celebrating. Perhaps grunting and expressing anger is good for ratings. The middle class he champions so hard needs the immigrants(even the illegals) the most. He wont tell you that.
But its going to be crying time for them in 2007.
Comprehensive immigration, for which Bush did a prime-time national address in May and grumbled about a lack of CIR even when he was signing the 600-mile border bill before the ink was dry on the fence bill is going to be the one big item which is common ground between Democratic congress and this White House. And it seems that bi-partisanship is back in fashion (yes, it is, since balance has tilted in opposite direction) and that bi-partisanship is GUARANTEED to produce 2 things : Raising the minimum wage and Comprehensive Immigration reform. Democrats have waited for 12 years for majority in the House and are not going to screw it up by being non-productive.
So Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly etc have a lot of crying to do when Bush signs CIR in a White House signing ceremony and in the background they see the Democrats clapping hands while cameras flash pictures for next days newspapers.
Its crying time for all of the Lou Dobbs of the world. So cry cry away and editorialize away your papers with your stupid op-eds.
Its going to be crying time for Lou Dobbs and his ilk.
That includes:
Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and Rush Limbaugh.
All of them - however Lou Dobbs leads in that pack - cannot live with the probability that so many illegals are going to get amnesty now that their favorite party has lost majority.
And you have to hand to Lou. He has been a harsh critic of 109th congress and Bush. Very harsh. But not once he has said that maybe, just maybe voting democratic in 2006 may change the bahavior and performance of congress. So after long long editorials, his recommendation was what? Vote for who? Independents who werent running or close to getting anywhere? And after the Government he criticized so much has lost control, I dont see him celebrating. Perhaps grunting and expressing anger is good for ratings. The middle class he champions so hard needs the immigrants(even the illegals) the most. He wont tell you that.
But its going to be crying time for them in 2007.
Comprehensive immigration, for which Bush did a prime-time national address in May and grumbled about a lack of CIR even when he was signing the 600-mile border bill before the ink was dry on the fence bill is going to be the one big item which is common ground between Democratic congress and this White House. And it seems that bi-partisanship is back in fashion (yes, it is, since balance has tilted in opposite direction) and that bi-partisanship is GUARANTEED to produce 2 things : Raising the minimum wage and Comprehensive Immigration reform. Democrats have waited for 12 years for majority in the House and are not going to screw it up by being non-productive.
So Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly etc have a lot of crying to do when Bush signs CIR in a White House signing ceremony and in the background they see the Democrats clapping hands while cameras flash pictures for next days newspapers.
Its crying time for all of the Lou Dobbs of the world. So cry cry away and editorialize away your papers with your stupid op-eds.
more...
alisa
01-04 01:22 AM
I think it's now a moot point with you playing obtuse( genuinely or otherwise)
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
I see you have put arrows in disparate points that I had made. I think you are reading way too much in it if you see circular logic, or even a link, in those disjointed points above.
There is a lot that has been said on this thread that I agree with. That is not 'conceding points'. Its just agreeing with something.
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
I see you have put arrows in disparate points that I had made. I think you are reading way too much in it if you see circular logic, or even a link, in those disjointed points above.
There is a lot that has been said on this thread that I agree with. That is not 'conceding points'. Its just agreeing with something.
hair iPod touch gallery
Legal
08-08 02:22 PM
1.Losing all your friends
Man comes home, finds his wife with his friend in bed.
He shoots his friend and kills him.
Wife says "If you behave like this, you will lose ALL your friends."
2. Brother wanted
A small boy wrote to Santa Claus,"send me a brother"....
Santa wrote back, "SEND ME YOUR MOTHER"....
3. Meaning of WIFE
Husband asks, "Do you know the meaning of WIFE? It means 'Without Information Fighting Everytime'!"
Wife replies, "No, it means 'With Idiot For Ever'!!!"
4. Importance of a period
Teacher: "Do you know the importance of a period?"
Kid: "Yeah, once my sister said she has missed one, my mom fainted, dad got a heart attack & our driver ran away."
Man comes home, finds his wife with his friend in bed.
He shoots his friend and kills him.
Wife says "If you behave like this, you will lose ALL your friends."
2. Brother wanted
A small boy wrote to Santa Claus,"send me a brother"....
Santa wrote back, "SEND ME YOUR MOTHER"....
3. Meaning of WIFE
Husband asks, "Do you know the meaning of WIFE? It means 'Without Information Fighting Everytime'!"
Wife replies, "No, it means 'With Idiot For Ever'!!!"
4. Importance of a period
Teacher: "Do you know the importance of a period?"
Kid: "Yeah, once my sister said she has missed one, my mom fainted, dad got a heart attack & our driver ran away."
more...
BumbleBee
03-24 02:41 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
hot Can ipod touch 4 do anything
psam
07-13 05:57 PM
I have seen these arguments too many times. I have seen STEM vs non-STEM argue over fairness. Maths vs MBA. Now its EB-3 vs EB-2.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
more...
house 4 Comments For This Post
Macaca
02-28 09:39 AM
Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28thu2.html?ref=opinion) NYT Editorial, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
tattoo iPod Touch 3G iOS 4
GCBatman
01-06 12:42 PM
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that?
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that?
more...
pictures begin the iPod Touch 4
allinall
01-06 03:21 PM
Hello all,
What the starter of this thread saying is human suffering anyhere is the same. Why different yardstick for different re(li)gion? Don't confuse with politics.
What the starter of this thread saying is human suffering anyhere is the same. Why different yardstick for different re(li)gion? Don't confuse with politics.
dresses New iPod Touch Has 2 Megapixel
hiralal
06-05 10:55 PM
I have done lot of research and come up with calculations ..please note ..I am renting now but am also a potential home buyer ..only the GC is preventing me from buying.
both have its advantages and dis ..by renting, I save a lot and I spend that money more freely (eating out more frequently, wife is not under pressure to work, kids in summer camps, fully funding retirement etc). kids have more friends, playdates etc etc. also the flexibility and peace of mind that renting gives me (and my family) is priceless in this environment. similarly owning has its own pleasures and others maybe able to write better on that.
my point is only from timing point of view and from financial perspective ..home is huge investment and if prices are still falling then it makes sense to wait ..the reason being if prices fall an additional 10 - 15% in your area then you may lose 30 - 40K in one year (which is almost 2 - 3 years of savings for better paid guys). on top of it if you lose job and H1/EAD gets cancelled then you are FINISHED.
here is the article that I mentioned ..also note 3% appreciation was past (slightlly more than rate of inflation) ..it will take years to even come there
---------------------
one of the adjustable variables is home appreciation. The default level is 3% a year, meaning the $300,000 home would be worth $309,000 after one year, $318,270 after two years and so forth.
Reduce that figure to 1% and the break even period jumps to 4.8 years. At 0% it's 7.2 years.
These days, 0% appreciation is not all that bad. The calculator won't take a negative number, but it's easy to imagine what would happen if, for example, prices were to drop by 5% a year for three years, then resume a 3% annual increase. Your home would lose about 15% of its value in three years and would then take five more to get back to where you started, a total of eight years.
With appreciation continuing at 3% it would take another 2.5 years to break even once commissions, taxes and other factors were taken into account. So it probably wouldn't pay to buy this home unless you expected to stay there for more than 10.5 years.
But there's no doubt that periods of low home-price appreciation or falling home values dramatically undermine any financial benefits of owning over renting.
---------------------
both have its advantages and dis ..by renting, I save a lot and I spend that money more freely (eating out more frequently, wife is not under pressure to work, kids in summer camps, fully funding retirement etc). kids have more friends, playdates etc etc. also the flexibility and peace of mind that renting gives me (and my family) is priceless in this environment. similarly owning has its own pleasures and others maybe able to write better on that.
my point is only from timing point of view and from financial perspective ..home is huge investment and if prices are still falling then it makes sense to wait ..the reason being if prices fall an additional 10 - 15% in your area then you may lose 30 - 40K in one year (which is almost 2 - 3 years of savings for better paid guys). on top of it if you lose job and H1/EAD gets cancelled then you are FINISHED.
here is the article that I mentioned ..also note 3% appreciation was past (slightlly more than rate of inflation) ..it will take years to even come there
---------------------
one of the adjustable variables is home appreciation. The default level is 3% a year, meaning the $300,000 home would be worth $309,000 after one year, $318,270 after two years and so forth.
Reduce that figure to 1% and the break even period jumps to 4.8 years. At 0% it's 7.2 years.
These days, 0% appreciation is not all that bad. The calculator won't take a negative number, but it's easy to imagine what would happen if, for example, prices were to drop by 5% a year for three years, then resume a 3% annual increase. Your home would lose about 15% of its value in three years and would then take five more to get back to where you started, a total of eight years.
With appreciation continuing at 3% it would take another 2.5 years to break even once commissions, taxes and other factors were taken into account. So it probably wouldn't pay to buy this home unless you expected to stay there for more than 10.5 years.
But there's no doubt that periods of low home-price appreciation or falling home values dramatically undermine any financial benefits of owning over renting.
---------------------
more...
makeup Ipod Touch 4: For The First
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.
girlfriend Apple iPod Touch 4 is the best
myuname
04-07 07:55 PM
When there is no solution is to be found for the illegal immigration issue...then the obvious thing to mess with is the legal immigration! Isn't It? ;)
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
hairstyles the next iPod Touch 4G
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
logiclife
05-16 12:14 PM
No need to have Durbin's bill. Just ban Outsourcing, then all jobs will come back and everybody will be happy here in US.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
punjabi
08-08 07:53 PM
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
Abe.. lets call it "manhole".
coz these days the environment is no better than that :D:D:D
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
Abe.. lets call it "manhole".
coz these days the environment is no better than that :D:D:D
No comments:
Post a Comment