Michigan123
12-29 12:59 PM
"The great Athenian historian Thucydides, writing almost 2500 years ago, concluded that one reason a nation goes to war is a perception of waning power: act now because the future looks worse than the present. The scale of the assault on Gaza suggests that the Olmert government is validating Thucydides' analysis: embarking on the end game to crush Hamas before it gets stronger, and Israel's position gets weaker. As Thucydides also observed, though, nations taking this gamble tend to be poor judges of what the consequences will be."
I do not know how much this true ,but one thing is sure America is helping ISLAM (As of today and popular belief that america is destroying ISLAM) ..
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
They support israel to have a jews homeland and side by side clearing mess (you can say they are killing people....etc ..please acknowlede around 170 people died due to bus accident in some rural village etc...no one will notice ...when 170 people died in GAZA ,every one is jumping"
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
War has causulaity (Soldiers and Civilians at mass scale) ..But america do not have mass scale civilian causualities .........so America is not having WAR ...It is media hype. They are just doing some small time fights ......(everyone needs in there lifespan to show)...
At end Pakistan is moving forces across border becuase it is scared . Israel is planning to INVADE palestine becuase they are scared to death ...Thye do not knwo what OBAMA and better emerging Gulf countries will do with them ..
At end GOD SAVE AMERICA.
I do not know how much this true ,but one thing is sure America is helping ISLAM (As of today and popular belief that america is destroying ISLAM) ..
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
They support israel to have a jews homeland and side by side clearing mess (you can say they are killing people....etc ..please acknowlede around 170 people died due to bus accident in some rural village etc...no one will notice ...when 170 people died in GAZA ,every one is jumping"
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
War has causulaity (Soldiers and Civilians at mass scale) ..But america do not have mass scale civilian causualities .........so America is not having WAR ...It is media hype. They are just doing some small time fights ......(everyone needs in there lifespan to show)...
At end Pakistan is moving forces across border becuase it is scared . Israel is planning to INVADE palestine becuase they are scared to death ...Thye do not knwo what OBAMA and better emerging Gulf countries will do with them ..
At end GOD SAVE AMERICA.
wallpaper cities, london, england
walking_dude
09-29 02:36 PM
Full disclousre - I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But after watching the debate I believe Obama is a better candidate for Presidency than John McCain and here's why -
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
dealsnet
01-08 10:56 AM
If you don't got the greencard, good luck for that. Please don't discuss any religious things here. It make others furious. Concentrate on your carrer and family. Belief in God is enough. Organised Religion will give misery only. Man made the religion. God didn't created it.
you have serious language comprehension issues.. I used bastards on palestinians not jews in a post where i was defending palestinians, so i was being sarcastic
and in the other post you refer to, i was criticizing jews, cristians and muslims for taking the end of time scenarios too seriously and applying it now.. no ones knows we are the the end of times anyway.. and even if that in some way offends you, that doesn't make name-calling all egyptians any less racist
you have serious language comprehension issues.. I used bastards on palestinians not jews in a post where i was defending palestinians, so i was being sarcastic
and in the other post you refer to, i was criticizing jews, cristians and muslims for taking the end of time scenarios too seriously and applying it now.. no ones knows we are the the end of times anyway.. and even if that in some way offends you, that doesn't make name-calling all egyptians any less racist
2011 London Dreams Movie Wallpaper
anilsal
11-12 11:59 PM
Now i remember about my Indian friend who passed through the "H1B turned GC holder" route bad mouthing about US h1 policy ( that time there was an attempt to hike the quota by some 20000 and he was deeply upset by that ).
It is not about your Indian friend alone. There are a large number of people who have got GC/Citizenship via some form of immigration (mostly family) and are bad mouthing H1B holders/quota etc. In addition, since some of them run businesses, guess which party they love. ;)
It is not about your Indian friend alone. There are a large number of people who have got GC/Citizenship via some form of immigration (mostly family) and are bad mouthing H1B holders/quota etc. In addition, since some of them run businesses, guess which party they love. ;)
more...
nojoke
04-16 12:03 PM
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
I have debated this with myself. I don't know if this is practical. How many of us are there who wants to buy a house? 500K at the most? For the first 3 months alone, this year, there are 500K foreclosures. I know every bit helps. But the problem is not that there are not people to buy. The price is too high. We probably can influence the local realtors. Just go to them and then back off saying that you are uncomfortable buying without green card. If a lot of us does that, the message will go up and maybe they will talk to law makers. Realtors are desperate...
I don't know how we execute this.
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
I have debated this with myself. I don't know if this is practical. How many of us are there who wants to buy a house? 500K at the most? For the first 3 months alone, this year, there are 500K foreclosures. I know every bit helps. But the problem is not that there are not people to buy. The price is too high. We probably can influence the local realtors. Just go to them and then back off saying that you are uncomfortable buying without green card. If a lot of us does that, the message will go up and maybe they will talk to law makers. Realtors are desperate...
I don't know how we execute this.
trueguy
07-13 03:04 AM
Sorry .. I don't understand ... You are complaining to DOS for USCIS and DOL discrepancies ? They don't care ..different departments really..
Had they cared July fiasco wouldn't have happened...
This is the first time, EB3-I is speaking up. Please don't stop us.
DOS and USCIS both are tied together. I think we should send this letter to both DOS and USCIS and request them to distribute spillover numbers equally between EB3 and EB2 category or similar.
Thanks
Had they cared July fiasco wouldn't have happened...
This is the first time, EB3-I is speaking up. Please don't stop us.
DOS and USCIS both are tied together. I think we should send this letter to both DOS and USCIS and request them to distribute spillover numbers equally between EB3 and EB2 category or similar.
Thanks
more...
Gravitation
03-25 03:59 PM
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
2010 london wallpaper Picture
Beemar
12-26 12:52 PM
Guys,
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
more...
decipher
07-09 01:05 AM
If the past employer didn't pay salary, you can file a complaint with DOL regarding unpaid wages (I believe that there are some time limits for such complaints - please check).
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
hair Namastey London - Wallpaper
jkays94
05-31 08:36 PM
Some CNN folks move to Fox but I doubt whether Lou stands a chance.
Dobb's was once CNN's executive VP, he quit CNN and returned later....
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from Moneyline to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Moneyline which later became Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the New York Daily News. [more] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs)
Dobb's was once CNN's executive VP, he quit CNN and returned later....
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from Moneyline to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Moneyline which later became Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the New York Daily News. [more] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs)
more...
NKR
08-06 03:12 PM
NKR,
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
Dude, I did not personally bash anyone let alone give you a red dot, I was just putting forth my opinions which you and some of our ilk did not like which is fair enough.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
Dude, I did not personally bash anyone let alone give you a red dot, I was just putting forth my opinions which you and some of our ilk did not like which is fair enough.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
hot London iPhone Wallpaper
sledge_hammer
06-05 05:53 PM
Unless one is a day trader, he/she probably has a real job (no offense to day traders :D), and only invests regularly through his/her employer sponsored retirement account or if she is self employed, she has an IRA account, to take advantage of dollar cost averaging. I am the latter btw! It used to be that 10 years was what was considered to measure the performance of any investment, and even though that trend has changed now, let's just stick with the 10 year yard stick.
Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.
-------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.
-------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------
Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.
1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.
If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
Earnings = 2k.
You save 3k each year by renting.
Running Total = 5k.
Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
Running Total = 9k.
So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.
Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.
I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.
This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
more...
house Wallpaper Hanging London
conchshell
08-09 01:48 PM
A friend to another: "When I die, I want to die like my grandpa who passed away peacefully in his sleep, but not like the freaked out passengers of the car he was driving."
tattoo hd wallpaper london.
yagw
08-20 02:53 AM
Mr. X going to airport with his friend for the first time...
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
more...
pictures Free Christmas London Eye
gimme_GC2006
03-23 02:19 PM
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
dresses London, England Wallpapers
milind70
07-11 11:21 AM
Thanks Milind70,
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
I think the best case for you is when u get your 3 year extension
go to your home country for stamping and make sure u submit all your I 94s
when u leave even the one that came with 797 .
Whne u reenter you will get a new I 94.
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
I think the best case for you is when u get your 3 year extension
go to your home country for stamping and make sure u submit all your I 94s
when u leave even the one that came with 797 .
Whne u reenter you will get a new I 94.
more...
makeup London at Night Wallpaper,
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
girlfriend hd wallpaper london. hd
Macaca
12-23 11:04 AM
'D' in Democrats means Do-Nothing (http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7792528?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) BUSH, REPUBLICANS GET THEIR WAY ON MOST ISSUES DESPITE VOTERS' MANDATE TO CHANGE DIRECTION Mercury News Editorial, 12/23/2007
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
hairstyles Tag: iPhone 4 Wallpaper London
Ramba
09-26 03:24 PM
Employment based GC will exist whoever wins. CIR or any other reform that increses number of immigrants per year (legal/illegal/ammnisity/point system/high skilled/low skilled) may not be possible in new administration (BO/Mcsamebush), unless economy bounce back. Immigration is tiny bit of the big problem facing this country. If the current economny lead to depression/recession what is the use of having GC/USC?
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
nojoke
04-17 04:13 PM
http://dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay080417.aspx
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
It is down by 100K compared to last year. Just like I said, every year it is going to be 100K down for 2 more years.:D
GCwaitforever
07-15 07:06 AM
May be we should start an advisory service for H-1B immigrants on their rights, how to fight abusive employers etc ... Best way to go would be setting up a non-profit with initial discussions happening in a local community center hall (Church, Mosque, temple, public library, or even a local cafe). We could even recruit a kind-hearted lawyer on pro-bono basis. When we open chapters at every city where immigrant population is clustered, this will cover most of the immigrants.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment