Macaca
03-19 01:20 PM
New Congress, Same Obstacles for Democratic Lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html), By Al Kamen, Monday, March 19, 2007
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
wallpaper heidi klum kids names.
satishku_2000
05-16 02:56 PM
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
pitha
02-21 11:33 AM
This is so ridiculous. Lou Dobbs is self-righteous self serving idiot that�s was well known but why is CNN pimping him. Don�t they realize as Lou Dobbs is becoming a laughing stock so is CNN by pimping him. I was trying to write some comments on this joke written by Lou Dobbs but CNN does not provide a means to write your comments.
2011 Celebrity Gossip – Heidi Klum
CreatedToday
01-06 05:50 PM
Are they poor? I doubt, this is luxury!
"... at least two of his four wives, as well as several of his children ...
Mr Rayyan, a professor of Islamic law, .... his five-storey home ... He had been an advocate of men having up to four wives and as many children as possible,...
He had vowed that Hamas would go on to seize control of the West Bank from Fatah, as it had done with Gaza in a week of street battles in June 2007. He accused the Western-backed Fatah leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, of collaborating with Israel, a charge that normally means execution in Hamas's rough justice
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5429904.ece
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
"... at least two of his four wives, as well as several of his children ...
Mr Rayyan, a professor of Islamic law, .... his five-storey home ... He had been an advocate of men having up to four wives and as many children as possible,...
He had vowed that Hamas would go on to seize control of the West Bank from Fatah, as it had done with Gaza in a week of street battles in June 2007. He accused the Western-backed Fatah leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, of collaborating with Israel, a charge that normally means execution in Hamas's rough justice
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5429904.ece
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
more...
delax
07-13 12:56 PM
Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
gc_chahiye
08-03 02:05 PM
... going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; .... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
huh? another shocker (atleast for me): what is the issue with using AC21 to go from a consulting job to a permanent one? As long as title and duties say the same. If I am consulting at a client site, cant I use AC21 to join them fulltime 6 months down the line? My duties etc remain exactly the same.
huh? another shocker (atleast for me): what is the issue with using AC21 to go from a consulting job to a permanent one? As long as title and duties say the same. If I am consulting at a client site, cant I use AC21 to join them fulltime 6 months down the line? My duties etc remain exactly the same.
more...
xyzgc
12-26 06:17 PM
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
2010 Heidi Klum with children - see
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
more...
lfwf
08-05 06:49 PM
I think it is all subjective. You ask “Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?”. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask “Do years spent working have no value?”.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say “ No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS”, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I believe you missed the entire point.
YES the people with work expereince can ask that question- and in fact they ARE getting the benefit of those years.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit?
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them. What does it have to do with immigration lines?
I'll answer for you since you refuse to be objective.
The benefit of doing an advanced degree was placed in law as the ability to get a job in a higher preference category. That takes care of the lost years in getting a PD. When a person in EB3 becomes eligible for EB2, that's great, he/she gets to reapply and move to EB2 and take the benefit of the improved GC cut off dates. At this point if this person ALSO ports an old PD based on the years of work, which others in the EB2 category cannot use (they were training) it becomes a disproportionate advantage.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion.
I'm posting this mainly to frame the debate properly. All I hear from most people is innuendo and accusation. Everyone but the poster is a fraud, while the poor EB3 poster is genuine and cheated. What rubbish! There is some basis for angst over porting dates, just as there is basis for angst over people being stuck in EB3 because their employers chose it that way.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say “ No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS”, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I believe you missed the entire point.
YES the people with work expereince can ask that question- and in fact they ARE getting the benefit of those years.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit?
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them. What does it have to do with immigration lines?
I'll answer for you since you refuse to be objective.
The benefit of doing an advanced degree was placed in law as the ability to get a job in a higher preference category. That takes care of the lost years in getting a PD. When a person in EB3 becomes eligible for EB2, that's great, he/she gets to reapply and move to EB2 and take the benefit of the improved GC cut off dates. At this point if this person ALSO ports an old PD based on the years of work, which others in the EB2 category cannot use (they were training) it becomes a disproportionate advantage.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion.
I'm posting this mainly to frame the debate properly. All I hear from most people is innuendo and accusation. Everyone but the poster is a fraud, while the poor EB3 poster is genuine and cheated. What rubbish! There is some basis for angst over porting dates, just as there is basis for angst over people being stuck in EB3 because their employers chose it that way.
hair heidi klum kids photos.
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
more...
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.
hot heidi klum kids 2011. heidi
sanju
12-18 05:41 PM
Why is it that there are no true democracies in the middle east? Have you ever thought of that? Do you realize that in a country like Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and they have to follow the dictates of the mullahs!! Every person, irrespective of their personal faith is subject to the Sharia laws!! Is that justice!! Why is it that Muslims don’t see oppression within their own country and try wage a jihad against that? Why is it that Muslims don’t want to spend time and effort cleaning up their own house?
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
more...
house Heidi Klum and Kids Do Lunch
chanduv23
02-15 10:58 AM
As we are not voting public and voting public are against us, and employers do little for us, what is the basis in which we can influence politicians buy our cause?
tattoo heidi klum seal children.
logiclife
07-17 10:42 AM
Those of you who dont know, Randall Emery is a good friend of Immigration Voice.
Previously he has helped some of the 485 applicants on this forum who were stuck in name-check process. Randall helped us arrange a meeting with a lawyer that he had hired for his wife's immigration quagmire when her greencard was stuck in namecheck.
Randall has repeated supported immigration voice as he himself was unaware of the problems in legal immigration until he married a foriegner. He has provided support, advise and tips and offered to help us.
Everyone:
Please make sure you dont accuse people just because you think or feel someone is not friendly. At least take some pain and read previous posts of the person to make sure you dont engage in friendly fire.
Previously he has helped some of the 485 applicants on this forum who were stuck in name-check process. Randall helped us arrange a meeting with a lawyer that he had hired for his wife's immigration quagmire when her greencard was stuck in namecheck.
Randall has repeated supported immigration voice as he himself was unaware of the problems in legal immigration until he married a foriegner. He has provided support, advise and tips and offered to help us.
Everyone:
Please make sure you dont accuse people just because you think or feel someone is not friendly. At least take some pain and read previous posts of the person to make sure you dont engage in friendly fire.
more...
pictures sun for Heidi Klum#39;s kids
ghost
07-17 10:24 AM
Also I forgot to say Randall, I think you really want to see no greencards to anyone. Are you a spy?
What's wrong with you man, do your homework before spitting out such venemous statements.
What's wrong with you man, do your homework before spitting out such venemous statements.
dresses Heidi Klum out shopping with
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
more...
makeup tattoo Heidi Klum: Child in
vrbest
03-23 08:10 AM
I agree with all the posters here. I also went ahead and bought the house while on H1B. Me and my family are really happy with our decision.
I got 100% loan (80-20) with no PMI. both 30yrs fixed. You can try with Mortgage agents who would do better deal initially and may transfer loan to big companies later. I got it at 5.7% first and 7% second last year.
Best of luck on your new Home(Lifestyle)!
I got 100% loan (80-20) with no PMI. both 30yrs fixed. You can try with Mortgage agents who would do better deal initially and may transfer loan to big companies later. I got it at 5.7% first and 7% second last year.
Best of luck on your new Home(Lifestyle)!
girlfriend Heidi Klum joined The Bert
file485
07-08 04:35 PM
thanks UN..
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
we don't mean to bug you..!!
but sometimes these r so scary..it feels we r better off being illegal in this country..
all this is just plain BS..when we r paying so much in taxes and SS in this country..we r still chopped and diced like vegetables ...
btw..on the same note since you r here..does the 'out of status' count only after the last entry in to thr country..or it is still scrutinised right from the time you land into the US..
pls post..
hairstyles Mom Heidi Klum took three
irock
07-14 02:17 PM
couldn't say it better.
About same time last year we had different "schism" on these forums: July 2007 filers with approved labor who could file their 485s Vs those with older PDs but unfortunately stuck in BECs. Most of Eb3s who are outraged today are July 2007 filers. Any guesses how many of them requested BEC victims back then "to be happy" for others and not rock the boat?
The unfortunate fact is that although everyone here is convinced of their moral high ground it is nothing more than self-preservation at the end. If it was just that it would still be fine (human nature) but still more unfortunate is the fact that we as a group never get this riled up - except few notable and respected exceptions - as long as everyone is equally miserable. Only if we had so much participation in all action items (admin fixes, house bills, funding drive etc.)...
About same time last year we had different "schism" on these forums: July 2007 filers with approved labor who could file their 485s Vs those with older PDs but unfortunately stuck in BECs. Most of Eb3s who are outraged today are July 2007 filers. Any guesses how many of them requested BEC victims back then "to be happy" for others and not rock the boat?
The unfortunate fact is that although everyone here is convinced of their moral high ground it is nothing more than self-preservation at the end. If it was just that it would still be fine (human nature) but still more unfortunate is the fact that we as a group never get this riled up - except few notable and respected exceptions - as long as everyone is equally miserable. Only if we had so much participation in all action items (admin fixes, house bills, funding drive etc.)...
gveerab
03-23 02:35 AM
First sounded funny, then it made helluva sense.
I suggest to go ahead and buy. I bought a townhome in California. I have been working here from last 8 yrs and thought enough is enough and bought the house.
if you have plan to stay here for more than 5 yrs you should not wait.
I suggest to go ahead and buy. I bought a townhome in California. I have been working here from last 8 yrs and thought enough is enough and bought the house.
if you have plan to stay here for more than 5 yrs you should not wait.
StuckInTheMuck
08-05 02:10 PM
A man goes skydiving. After a fantastic free fall he pulls the rip cord to open his parachute but nothing happens. He tries everything but can't get it open.
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
