Pagal
06-05 03:00 PM
This is your justification for renting? ....Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
wallpaper makes every athing suit
GotGC??
02-21 12:46 PM
The estate no doubt belonged to his forefathers - who were native Indians and not some immigrant scum - and has been handed down to him thru the generations.
But this Asswipe has 800,000 Viewers on his Show.Gets $6 Million From CNN and lives in a 300 Acre Home in Sussex County, New Jersey.:eek:
But this Asswipe has 800,000 Viewers on his Show.Gets $6 Million From CNN and lives in a 300 Acre Home in Sussex County, New Jersey.:eek:
pitha
02-21 04:06 PM
He is not questioned, ridiculed or targeted because he is a nobody. His viewership is not in millions but in hundred thousands. 762,000 to be precise. With such viewership numbers nobody targets him because its not worth it. Even "SpongeBob SquarePants" a carton show on Nickelodeon manages to get higher viewership than Lou Dobbs even though "SpongeBob SquarePants" is targeted at children.
we are targeting him because he is saying things which are inaccurate if not ludicrous regarding immigration. He is similar to tancredo. Did anybody know there was a xenophobe called tancredo before he started riling against CIR. Lou Dobbs and Tancredo realized they have stuck gold with there diatribe against immigration and they are riding this xenophobic wave for it full worth.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
we are targeting him because he is saying things which are inaccurate if not ludicrous regarding immigration. He is similar to tancredo. Did anybody know there was a xenophobe called tancredo before he started riling against CIR. Lou Dobbs and Tancredo realized they have stuck gold with there diatribe against immigration and they are riding this xenophobic wave for it full worth.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
2011 swimsuit for candiesmay
texcan
08-06 04:42 PM
The Seven Dwarfs are on a vacation in Europe and receive an audience with the Pope.
As the oldest, Dopey serves as spokesman for his mates.
Standing before the Pope, Dopey asks, "Your excellency, are there any dwarf
nuns in Vatican City?"
The Pope thinks for a moment and says, "No, Dopey, there are no dwarf nuns
in Vatican City."
This makes the other six dwarfs snicker.
Dopey then asks, "Mr. Pope, are there any dwarf nuns in Europe?"
"No," the Pope responds. "There are no dwarf nuns in Europe."
Hearing this, the other six dwarfs fall to the floor, laughing and howling.
Dopey looks at the Pope and says, "Sir, are there any dwarf nuns in the
world?"
"No, my son," the Pope says. "There are no dwarf nuns anywhere in the
world."
With this, the other six dwarfs began chanting, "Dopey made love to a
penguin! Dopey made love to a penguin!"
As the oldest, Dopey serves as spokesman for his mates.
Standing before the Pope, Dopey asks, "Your excellency, are there any dwarf
nuns in Vatican City?"
The Pope thinks for a moment and says, "No, Dopey, there are no dwarf nuns
in Vatican City."
This makes the other six dwarfs snicker.
Dopey then asks, "Mr. Pope, are there any dwarf nuns in Europe?"
"No," the Pope responds. "There are no dwarf nuns in Europe."
Hearing this, the other six dwarfs fall to the floor, laughing and howling.
Dopey looks at the Pope and says, "Sir, are there any dwarf nuns in the
world?"
"No, my son," the Pope says. "There are no dwarf nuns anywhere in the
world."
With this, the other six dwarfs began chanting, "Dopey made love to a
penguin! Dopey made love to a penguin!"
more...
Macaca
12-30 06:57 PM
A Bridge to a Love for Democracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30iht-letter30.html) By RICHARD BERNSTEIN | New York Times
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
akred
04-07 03:09 PM
Let me guess, you work at a R&D facility, right? May be, looking for the best way to fit in your individual situation. No offense meant, however, I would request IV and its membership to have a bigger perspective in dealing whit this bill. Otherwise, 500,000 people will be systematically purged from US. And that includes most people waiting for their green cards.
For sure, this bill is bad. However I do think that the H1B program should have some way of making a distinction between what is essentially a market access issue for foreign companies and a means for domestic companies to hire foreign talent.
For sure, this bill is bad. However I do think that the H1B program should have some way of making a distinction between what is essentially a market access issue for foreign companies and a means for domestic companies to hire foreign talent.
more...
bigboy007
10-05 06:13 PM
But as many have pointed out , I have same doubts whether US will maintain its edge with all these issues facing.
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
2010 fastskin swimsuit Britney
Emerson
04-07 04:55 AM
Durbin Grassley bill was timed to be introduced on April 2nd. It was thought, designed, planned and drafted well in advance before anybody would have known the date or time of when the H visa quota will exhaust. So there is no point in repeatedly saying that this bill is the result of quota finishing on day 1.
It is not a zero sum game that how many H visas Microsoft or Google or Intel got. And highly skilled immigrants working in these companies are not the only genius around. There is a lot of talent on H visa working in other companies. Microsoft is a responsible company and they understand that there just aren’t enough college graduates produced by the US universities. H visa holders contribute towards innovation helping the nation’s economy and they indirectly contributing towards progress even when not directly working for Microsoft or Google or Intel etc.
As administrator mentioned, this bill was being planned by the lobby groups working against H visa program for years. Here is a link dated 1999 showing that people have been working to end H visa program for long time.
http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/articles/miano_testimony.html
This bill is the work of same group of people and it does pose a real threat to H visa program.
H1 quota finished because of many reasons including:
1.) Companies waited for 1 year to hire someone they wanted to hire from outside. Last year also H1 quota did finish in April. So there was a backlog for some companies to hire people with specific talent.
2.) For some companies, green card backlog creates an incentive to hire on H visa. Trends suggest that US worker will most likely leave job with couple of years in IT sector. However, due to green card backlog, H1s cannot leave or change jobs for 6-10 years. This creates an incentive for “some” companies to hire on H visa. Solution to the problem is to fix green card backlog. If companies will know that H visa employee too could get green card in couple of years and could potentially leave, this incentive will get eliminated.
3.) The notion of something being scares creates added demand for it. This is what we are seeing with H visa quota.
This is a good discussion, please contribute to this discussion. I am here to learn.
It is not a zero sum game that how many H visas Microsoft or Google or Intel got. And highly skilled immigrants working in these companies are not the only genius around. There is a lot of talent on H visa working in other companies. Microsoft is a responsible company and they understand that there just aren’t enough college graduates produced by the US universities. H visa holders contribute towards innovation helping the nation’s economy and they indirectly contributing towards progress even when not directly working for Microsoft or Google or Intel etc.
As administrator mentioned, this bill was being planned by the lobby groups working against H visa program for years. Here is a link dated 1999 showing that people have been working to end H visa program for long time.
http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/articles/miano_testimony.html
This bill is the work of same group of people and it does pose a real threat to H visa program.
H1 quota finished because of many reasons including:
1.) Companies waited for 1 year to hire someone they wanted to hire from outside. Last year also H1 quota did finish in April. So there was a backlog for some companies to hire people with specific talent.
2.) For some companies, green card backlog creates an incentive to hire on H visa. Trends suggest that US worker will most likely leave job with couple of years in IT sector. However, due to green card backlog, H1s cannot leave or change jobs for 6-10 years. This creates an incentive for “some” companies to hire on H visa. Solution to the problem is to fix green card backlog. If companies will know that H visa employee too could get green card in couple of years and could potentially leave, this incentive will get eliminated.
3.) The notion of something being scares creates added demand for it. This is what we are seeing with H visa quota.
This is a good discussion, please contribute to this discussion. I am here to learn.
more...
dontcareanymore
08-07 05:21 PM
Now worst thing is that Lion can not change his job profile till he gets the green card. He will be forced to act like a monkey so that it matches with his monkey job profile mentioned in his PERM application. All he can hope for is to invoke AC21 after couple of years to join a new zoo, that too on a similar job profile. :D:D Gurus what are the Lion's options at this point of time?? :D:D:
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
hair Miss Spears#39; athing suit.
sk2006
06-05 03:20 PM
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
Correct.
Infact experts call an invest a good investment if
#1 Returns are good
#2 Expenses are low
Investment in house does not meet any of these.. Returns historically are only slightly better than rate of inflation (forget the bubble years) and expenses which include property taxes and maintenance costs are too much to call it a good investment. And then you pay interest on the borrowed money.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
Correct.
Infact experts call an invest a good investment if
#1 Returns are good
#2 Expenses are low
Investment in house does not meet any of these.. Returns historically are only slightly better than rate of inflation (forget the bubble years) and expenses which include property taxes and maintenance costs are too much to call it a good investment. And then you pay interest on the borrowed money.
more...
whoever
07-17 01:55 PM
United nations, some days back I sent you a private message. could you please please reply to that private message as a private message? thank you.
hot Britney Spears in a pink
BharatPremi
03-28 05:50 PM
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
This whole thing is a set conspiracy for the benefit of 5% . My biggest surprise is that nobody is asking a simple question: Why the hell traditional mortgages are designed for 30 years/40 years? Why not for 5 years and at the most for 10 years? If you might have seen your county record, you will see land cost is always a bear cheap against your total purchase price. Now you also know that construction cost is not that great too.
If you would have built that home by your self , you could built it at very reasonable price. So what is driving us nuts is the addition of "passive" amount which we call "market".. Now this "passive" insertion is designed for "Government" + " Lenders" + " realtors"--- and for their benefit you throughout your damn life end up paying mortgage. As long as the concept of "investment" and "profiteering" will be associated with housing you will see thousands of families get shattered for the benefit of some hundreds of families.
And you are seeing the effect. Government is out to save Bear Stern's as* but is not yet out to save millions of families.:mad:
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
The real cost is 255000. If a man with median income of $ 49,000/- wants to buy a home he will still be able to do that with all happiness if government enforces some limit say for an example 5-10% "passive" margin on top of this actual current cost for these sharks. But now in today's world you would be paying this large "passive" difference so your lender, realtor and government become fat and you end up working your ass of for 30 years to pay it off.
The beauty is that everybody is doing that and government has authorized it so it is legitimate. Basically this whole damn system corner the money to 5% people and I am not ready to tell that a capitalism. "Dacoits rule the city of theives."
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
This whole thing is a set conspiracy for the benefit of 5% . My biggest surprise is that nobody is asking a simple question: Why the hell traditional mortgages are designed for 30 years/40 years? Why not for 5 years and at the most for 10 years? If you might have seen your county record, you will see land cost is always a bear cheap against your total purchase price. Now you also know that construction cost is not that great too.
If you would have built that home by your self , you could built it at very reasonable price. So what is driving us nuts is the addition of "passive" amount which we call "market".. Now this "passive" insertion is designed for "Government" + " Lenders" + " realtors"--- and for their benefit you throughout your damn life end up paying mortgage. As long as the concept of "investment" and "profiteering" will be associated with housing you will see thousands of families get shattered for the benefit of some hundreds of families.
And you are seeing the effect. Government is out to save Bear Stern's as* but is not yet out to save millions of families.:mad:
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
The real cost is 255000. If a man with median income of $ 49,000/- wants to buy a home he will still be able to do that with all happiness if government enforces some limit say for an example 5-10% "passive" margin on top of this actual current cost for these sharks. But now in today's world you would be paying this large "passive" difference so your lender, realtor and government become fat and you end up working your ass of for 30 years to pay it off.
The beauty is that everybody is doing that and government has authorized it so it is legitimate. Basically this whole damn system corner the money to 5% people and I am not ready to tell that a capitalism. "Dacoits rule the city of theives."
more...
house Decked out in small athing
Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
tattoo Britney-Spears
senthil1
07-14 05:36 PM
If you go with any campaign without the support of any organisation or without any legal basis you are going to fail. Not only that if you go without IV support but at the same time use IV forum that will certainly impact the unity of IV and that will may have impact on survival of IV in future. I think Core IV Group is in fix in this issue and whatever they tell someone will be unhappy.
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
more...
pictures Britney Spears On Out Magazine
alisa
12-31 12:41 PM
See Hitler exported terror, which is what Pakistan is doing now and the Allies used violence in retaliation but were ultimately successful in bringing long term peace.
Do you realize that
a) Hitler did not export terror. He invaded and occupied countries. Non-state actors trying to kill Pakistanis, and Indians, and trying to start a war between India and Pakistan, are not the same as one country invading another.
b) That was before the atomic bomb,
Do you realize that
a) Hitler did not export terror. He invaded and occupied countries. Non-state actors trying to kill Pakistanis, and Indians, and trying to start a war between India and Pakistan, are not the same as one country invading another.
b) That was before the atomic bomb,
dresses at Kohl\\#39;s store. Britney
pthoko
07-11 01:57 PM
Please ignore my previous posting! I saw in one of the earlier postings that you are approved. Congratulations and Best wishes! and welcome back to this forum; Please help us here whenever you can.
Thanks!
QUOTE
Thanks!
QUOTE
more...
makeup Britney Spears#39; Crack Problem
pappu
08-05 09:13 PM
I enjoyed both the original and follow-up. By the time, the lion gets the GC, he might have forgot he was a lion, and even after getting GC, he will continue to act like monkey.
Here is what happened.
The lion got so fed up eating bananas everyday that he gathered lions from all other zoos and protested. He then used AC21 and went to a new zoo as a lion. All monkeys also interfiled and became lions.
Here is what happened.
The lion got so fed up eating bananas everyday that he gathered lions from all other zoos and protested. He then used AC21 and went to a new zoo as a lion. All monkeys also interfiled and became lions.
girlfriend vuitton athing suits
redcard
03-23 05:20 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
hairstyles ritney spears hold it
sledge_hammer
06-08 10:44 AM
There you go - "inflation"! This is another reason why investing in a house makes so much sense (iff your gc/job etc are sorted out).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners.
Thread gets more interesting...way of life..love the way it transformed from home buying good/bad to sound investment advice...here is my bit:
With all the $$ spending by government, inflation is inevitable. FED can try to fight it by increasing interest rates, but that will open another box of worms. In a hurry now and will post a detailed discussion later about interest rates, fed and inflation..very interesting indeed
my take is gold...solid investment in these times and a proven hedge against inflation
goodluck guys..more later
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners.
Thread gets more interesting...way of life..love the way it transformed from home buying good/bad to sound investment advice...here is my bit:
With all the $$ spending by government, inflation is inevitable. FED can try to fight it by increasing interest rates, but that will open another box of worms. In a hurry now and will post a detailed discussion later about interest rates, fed and inflation..very interesting indeed
my take is gold...solid investment in these times and a proven hedge against inflation
goodluck guys..more later
ghost
07-09 08:56 PM
Really, H1B program and employment based greencard program, that brings professionals in skilled occupation into this country to fill a shortage of skilled workers has been vindicated beyond limit. And they keep beating the same drums. "They steal jobs". "They drive down wages". They make good soundbites. And they make good quotes for Lou Dobbs.
Could not resist from posting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqWPS1NYyVw&search=jon%20stewart%20on%20immigration
One more example of Lou's extreme ideology.
Could not resist from posting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqWPS1NYyVw&search=jon%20stewart%20on%20immigration
One more example of Lou's extreme ideology.
Macaca
02-29 09:03 PM
Oracle Unit Lobbied on Patents, Visas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803503.html) Associated Press, Feb 28
WASHINGTON -- A unit of business software maker Oracle Corp. paid VAR II LLC $140,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government .
The firm lobbied Congress on a patent reform bill and immigration reform legislation related to visas for high-tech workers, according to the form posted online Feb. 13 by the Senate's public records office. Oracle USA Inc. paid the firm $140,000 in the second half of 2007 to lobby on those issues after hiring VAR II earlier last year.
The House last year approved a patent-reform bill intended to reduce litigation, improve patent quality and establish a post-approval evaluation process. Technology and financial services firms support the legislation, but pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies said it would weaken patent protection by reducing infringement penalties. The Senate is considering similar legislation.
Oracle is based in Redwood City, Calif.
Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.
WASHINGTON -- A unit of business software maker Oracle Corp. paid VAR II LLC $140,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government .
The firm lobbied Congress on a patent reform bill and immigration reform legislation related to visas for high-tech workers, according to the form posted online Feb. 13 by the Senate's public records office. Oracle USA Inc. paid the firm $140,000 in the second half of 2007 to lobby on those issues after hiring VAR II earlier last year.
The House last year approved a patent-reform bill intended to reduce litigation, improve patent quality and establish a post-approval evaluation process. Technology and financial services firms support the legislation, but pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies said it would weaken patent protection by reducing infringement penalties. The Senate is considering similar legislation.
Oracle is based in Redwood City, Calif.
Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.
