puddonhead
06-05 01:32 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.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
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.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
wallpaper Boat Clipart #33787 by Alex
sroyc
10-01 11:38 AM
Irrespective of who wins, the state of the economy will decide whether immigrant friendly bills will be passed by the Congress. When the times are good, when most Americans are happy with their jobs, very few people will spend their time opposing bills that favor us.
I've a very pessimistic view of the next 2 years. Most of the growth in the last 6-7 years was fueled by debt. Bailout or not, there will be more regulation on lending practices and consumers will find it harder to use their credit cards or home equity line of credit to buy things they really don't need. By some estimates, consumer spending accounts for 60-70% of the GDP, so you can imagine that any slowdown in spending will have a significant effect. I think that recovery from this downturn will be slow and painful. The only thing that can give the economy a huge boost is rapid growth in a new industry like green energy. It won't be easy to switch to green technology because of the strong hold of lobbyists from traditional energy companies over the Congress and it'll take a lot of political will and government spending to spur the green revolution. Will that happen under Obama or McCain? I've no clue. At least Obama has a plan to invest 15 billion dollars a year on renewable energy for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for another immigration bill. It's time to explore opportunities in other countries - India/Singapore/China/U.K./Canada/Australia.
I've a very pessimistic view of the next 2 years. Most of the growth in the last 6-7 years was fueled by debt. Bailout or not, there will be more regulation on lending practices and consumers will find it harder to use their credit cards or home equity line of credit to buy things they really don't need. By some estimates, consumer spending accounts for 60-70% of the GDP, so you can imagine that any slowdown in spending will have a significant effect. I think that recovery from this downturn will be slow and painful. The only thing that can give the economy a huge boost is rapid growth in a new industry like green energy. It won't be easy to switch to green technology because of the strong hold of lobbyists from traditional energy companies over the Congress and it'll take a lot of political will and government spending to spur the green revolution. Will that happen under Obama or McCain? I've no clue. At least Obama has a plan to invest 15 billion dollars a year on renewable energy for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for another immigration bill. It's time to explore opportunities in other countries - India/Singapore/China/U.K./Canada/Australia.
Macaca
02-13 09:38 AM
10 Reasons to Lobby for your cause (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do—people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
You can make a difference. It takes one person to initiate change. Gerry Jensen was a single mother struggling to raise her son in Toledo, Ohio, without the help of a workable child support system. She put an ad in a local newspaper to see if there were other moms who wanted to join her in working for change. There were. Over time, they built the Association for Child Support Enforcement, or ACES, which has helped change child support laws not just in Ohio, but across the country. One person—a single mother—made a difference.
People working together can make a difference. Families of Alzheimer’s patients working together, through the Alzheimer’s Association, convinced the government to invest resources into research for a cure. Other individuals formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving and convinced dozens of states to toughen up their drunk driving laws. As a result, the numbers of drunk driving deaths are lower. Additionally, many people find healing from tragedy by telling their stories and working to prevent it from happening to others.
People can change laws. Many of us think that ordinary individuals can’t make a difference. It is hard to change laws and policies. But it can be done. It has been done, over and over again in our history, in the face of great obstacles. People lost their lives fighting racist “Jim Crow” laws. They won. Women didn’t even have the power of the vote—as we all do today—when they started their struggle for suffrage. Our history is full of stories of people and groups that fought great odds to make great changes: child labor laws, public schools, clean air and water laws, social security.
These changes weren’t easy to achieve. Some took decades. They all took the active involvement—the lobbying—of thousands of people who felt something needed to be changed.
Lobbying is a democratic tradition. The act of telling our policymakers how to write and change our laws is at the very heart of our democratic system. It is an alternative to what has occurred in many other countries: tyranny or revolution. Lobbying has helped keep America’s democracy evolving over more than two centuries.
Lobbying helps find real solutions. Services provided directly to people in need, such as soup kitchens, emergency health clinics, and homeless shelters, are essential. But sometimes they are not enough. Many food pantries, for example, needed new laws to enable caterers and restaurants to donate excess food so the kitchens could feed more people. Family service organizations working to place abused children into safe homes needed changes in the judicial system so kids did not have to wait for years for a secure place to grow up. Through advocacy, both changes were implemented.
People thinking creatively and asking their elected officials for support can generate innovative solutions that overcome the root-cause of a problem.
Lobbying is easy. Many of us think lobbying is some mysterious rite that takes years to master. It isn’t. You can learn how to lobby—whom to call, when, what to say— in minutes. While there are a few simple reporting rules your organization needs to follow, it isn’t complicated. Countless numbers of people have learned how. Lobbying is easier and more effective when many committed people work together. One person does not have to do everything or know everything.
Policymakers need your expertise. Few institutions are closer to the real problems of people than nonprofits and community groups. They see problems first-hand. They know the needs. They see what works and what doesn’t. They can make problems real to policymakers. They care about the problems. Their passion and perspectives need to be heard. Every professional lobbyist will tell you that personal stories are powerful tools for change. People and policymakers can learn from your story.
Lobbying helps people. Some people become concerned that lobbying detracts from their mission, but quite the opposite is true. Everything that goes into a lobbying campaign—the research, the strategy planning, the phone calls and visits—will help fulfill your goal whether it be finding a curefor cancer, beautifying the local park, or helping some other cause that helps people. You may not personally provide a direct service, but through your advocacy work, you enable thousands of others to do so.
The views of local nonprofits are important. Increasingly, the federal government has been allowing local governments to decide how to spend federal money and make more decisions than in the past. This change gives local nonprofits even more responsibility to tell local policymakers what is needed and what will work. And because more decisions are being made locally, your lobbying can have an immediate, concrete impact on people in need.
Lobbying advances your cause and builds public trust. Building public trust is essential to nonprofit organizations and lobbying helps you gain it by increasing your organization’s visibility. Just as raising funds and recruiting volunteers are important to achieving your organization’s mission so is lobbying. You miss out on an important opportunity to advance your cause if you don’t think as much about relationships with local, state, and federal government.
2011 eygyptian oat.gif
ss1026
12-22 11:43 PM
That's very positive news. Its not like every muslim has ten wives and produces 50 children.And for that matter, every Hindu widow doesn't commit sati.
I don't know whether VHP has a hand book. At least, I have not read it even if there is one. If they have it and they have expressed similar thoughts, there is nothing I can do about it.
There are several issues in Indian society. We are not denying it.
What we are demanding is that Pakistan should stop sponsoring terrorism. Not only that the nation must take active steps to root it out instead of simply disowning the terrorists. That's all.
I feel the mood getting a little lighter here and about time. What happened in Mumbia was dastardly and the responsible gotta pay. Lets keep the pressure and focus on it.
What I dislike though is the attempt by extremists to generalize a group of people to make them less humane and easy for the other group to kill them or worse ethnic cleansing. The point you mentioned is very often quoted to scare/anger the majority. The muslims have been guilty of been easily misled too so this is not unique to hindus.
Amen to the end of terrorism but India is way ahead of its neighbors. I do not even wish to compare us to our neighbors though I hope they wake up and get their act together
I don't know whether VHP has a hand book. At least, I have not read it even if there is one. If they have it and they have expressed similar thoughts, there is nothing I can do about it.
There are several issues in Indian society. We are not denying it.
What we are demanding is that Pakistan should stop sponsoring terrorism. Not only that the nation must take active steps to root it out instead of simply disowning the terrorists. That's all.
I feel the mood getting a little lighter here and about time. What happened in Mumbia was dastardly and the responsible gotta pay. Lets keep the pressure and focus on it.
What I dislike though is the attempt by extremists to generalize a group of people to make them less humane and easy for the other group to kill them or worse ethnic cleansing. The point you mentioned is very often quoted to scare/anger the majority. The muslims have been guilty of been easily misled too so this is not unique to hindus.
Amen to the end of terrorism but India is way ahead of its neighbors. I do not even wish to compare us to our neighbors though I hope they wake up and get their act together
more...
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
SunnySurya
08-05 10:32 AM
Why should they?
Just self-interest and what works for them.
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
*
Just self-interest and what works for them.
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
*
more...
ilwaiting
06-01 01:31 PM
I bet these guys do NOT know the facts more than the Congress. I bet Congress might have done lot more research into this immigration issue and its impact in all aspects than these news channels anchor's.
But I guess it time that these channels get the facts straight or no conservative would believe them!!!
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
But I guess it time that these channels get the facts straight or no conservative would believe them!!!
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
2010 Map Symbols Boat clip art
Refugee_New
01-06 02:27 PM
Refugee_New,
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
more...
mariner5555
04-14 07:24 AM
i can not speak for everybody but
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
Atleast you are being honest and telling that the price now is somewhere around 350K. also the main point is that you bought it in 2004 so you are somewhat lucky. the situation now is such that prices are still very high in the correct location. I will give my example ..if I buy a house now ... for the good deals ..I have to buy one which is 14 miles away from work and another 22 miles away from city / airport (atlanta). and ofcourse if I buy at so far away it will not appreciate for another 10 years (many places have single roads ..and atlanta traffic is famous). there is still a bubble at better locations ..as sellers / builders are not lowering enough ..lots of for sale signs though.
now by renting ..I am closer to work / family ..so atleast 250 $ saved in gas plus vehicle maintenance ..add another 300 in maint + hoa for new house plu 300 - 400 in prop tax etc. with this money itself --I get good deals on renting a townhome with good apartment companies (hence no HOA).
so renting is not throwing money away ..you get a place to stay (with no maintenance) ..maybe smaller in size ..so you need to ask another question ,...do I need extra space (And maintenance ..) ..before you decide to buy especially now.
i bought in east coast in 2004 for $330K. it peaked to $425K in 2006 and now it is somewhere $350K. it may go even go down to $300K
I will break even if i stay for another 3 years. (total 7 years)
If renting then : 110K in rent with no benefits for 7 years.
Good Side:
- Tax benefits with dual income. ( proabably $300 per month)
- Bigger house
Bad Side:
Maintenance
IF i have to sell now then will be loss for me for sure so key is location and how long u stay.
Atleast you are being honest and telling that the price now is somewhere around 350K. also the main point is that you bought it in 2004 so you are somewhat lucky. the situation now is such that prices are still very high in the correct location. I will give my example ..if I buy a house now ... for the good deals ..I have to buy one which is 14 miles away from work and another 22 miles away from city / airport (atlanta). and ofcourse if I buy at so far away it will not appreciate for another 10 years (many places have single roads ..and atlanta traffic is famous). there is still a bubble at better locations ..as sellers / builders are not lowering enough ..lots of for sale signs though.
now by renting ..I am closer to work / family ..so atleast 250 $ saved in gas plus vehicle maintenance ..add another 300 in maint + hoa for new house plu 300 - 400 in prop tax etc. with this money itself --I get good deals on renting a townhome with good apartment companies (hence no HOA).
so renting is not throwing money away ..you get a place to stay (with no maintenance) ..maybe smaller in size ..so you need to ask another question ,...do I need extra space (And maintenance ..) ..before you decide to buy especially now.
hair Mast - Free Clip Art at
m306m
01-02 12:10 PM
This is a very sensitive and politically charged thread that has nothing to do with US immigration related matters. I am aware that there are several threads that have been opened in the past that were non-immigration related but this thread is more divisive than most.
Understandably there is a lot of hurt and anger that is being vented here. I am from South Mumbai and frequented the Taj (Got married across from the hotel at Radio Club) so I understand the sentiment. But I prefer not vent my political beliefs, anger and frustration here, so as not to be divisive both politically and religiously.
Lets morn for our loss, discuss politics & religion somewhere else, and move on with immigration related matters on IV.
my 2 cents.. (Have a safe and prosperous '09)
Understandably there is a lot of hurt and anger that is being vented here. I am from South Mumbai and frequented the Taj (Got married across from the hotel at Radio Club) so I understand the sentiment. But I prefer not vent my political beliefs, anger and frustration here, so as not to be divisive both politically and religiously.
Lets morn for our loss, discuss politics & religion somewhere else, and move on with immigration related matters on IV.
my 2 cents.. (Have a safe and prosperous '09)
more...
ScratchingHead
10-01 01:28 PM
For the record the raising of the FDIC limit was proposed by John Blunt and not Obama. One article spinned it to show that Obama proposed it and then that news got the most clicks and now everyone says that he proposed the limit.
Thats because the rich folks all of sudden who have more then 100k in their accounts felt unsecured and obviously the US government for the rich is helping the rich.
Thats because the rich folks all of sudden who have more then 100k in their accounts felt unsecured and obviously the US government for the rich is helping the rich.
hot Boat Launch Black clip art
pappu
07-14 09:35 AM
[Eb-3-I is also participating in calling and contributing..]
[For people suggesting that the letter is weak..could you give an idea as the what written in letter would work..]
[This statement is not entirely true...Lawyers have DOL/USICS contacts] and acts in a way that the application will get approved ...most times looking at the trend and talking to DOL contacts and adjudicators...]
Some answers to your questions:
- Due to visa wastage and pressure from several corners, DOS is trying its best to avoid any wastage this year. We should feel happy that this is happening. Now EB2 is getting benefit because, they are getting spillover from EB1 and EB2ROW. The last bulletin clarified it as there was confusion on how this allocation happens. If EB3 has to benefit from it, then EB2 needs to get current to get the spillover. I do not see that happening for a long time for EB3 India as a lot of people must be in the queue for EB2India. Thus this may not be the best approach for EB3 India.
If you write a letter asking for dates to move for EB3, that will not work. If you write a letter saying you are waiting for long and you should get greencards, my guess is the response will be that there are so few visas and so many applicants. Refer to the recent sub-committee hearing on visa wastage and backlogs and you will get answers.
- Lawyers cannot influence any decision through their contacts as they may have claimed to you/you got that impression (If at all they have any and if they say, then they must be reported because they cannot do it. In my opinion they cannot 'use contacts' to get decisions in their favor). If you have that impression that it is incorrect and illegal. If any lawyer has told you that, then he must be reported.
If any lawyer has told that DOL had asked labor to be filed in EB3 instead of EB2, then I have not seen any such communication from DOL. Ask your lawyer to produce that for you or ask him to give this to you in writing. I do not recollect that kind of news. Laws were not changed even if there was recession in 2001-2003. If you think the lawyer has misled you, you must take action against your lawyer. But I do not believe DOL asked people to file in EB3 instead of EB2. If that was the case then we need a proof and IV should look into that.
- IV had anticipated the difficulty in getting legislation this year. Thus we had started the admin fix campaign early this year and had been pushing for it real hard. However we could only get 4K letters from a 30K membership. A lot of them were anonymous. We are still deadlocked on the 3 Lofgren bills. Only 179 people made the calls from IV in the last 1.5 months.
So the solution is there but we need to get massive participation first. People can certainly write to the administration as in the admin fix campaign, but the question is can be have massive participation.
We all really need to brainstorm and come up with an idea that will ensure massive participation and present compelling reasons for administration or lawmakers to act. If you think letter is the best option then get the active members involved in reviewing and revising the draft before you start a campaign. Make a really strong case. IV will welcome anyone leading an effort and working on it aggressively.
[For people suggesting that the letter is weak..could you give an idea as the what written in letter would work..]
[This statement is not entirely true...Lawyers have DOL/USICS contacts] and acts in a way that the application will get approved ...most times looking at the trend and talking to DOL contacts and adjudicators...]
Some answers to your questions:
- Due to visa wastage and pressure from several corners, DOS is trying its best to avoid any wastage this year. We should feel happy that this is happening. Now EB2 is getting benefit because, they are getting spillover from EB1 and EB2ROW. The last bulletin clarified it as there was confusion on how this allocation happens. If EB3 has to benefit from it, then EB2 needs to get current to get the spillover. I do not see that happening for a long time for EB3 India as a lot of people must be in the queue for EB2India. Thus this may not be the best approach for EB3 India.
If you write a letter asking for dates to move for EB3, that will not work. If you write a letter saying you are waiting for long and you should get greencards, my guess is the response will be that there are so few visas and so many applicants. Refer to the recent sub-committee hearing on visa wastage and backlogs and you will get answers.
- Lawyers cannot influence any decision through their contacts as they may have claimed to you/you got that impression (If at all they have any and if they say, then they must be reported because they cannot do it. In my opinion they cannot 'use contacts' to get decisions in their favor). If you have that impression that it is incorrect and illegal. If any lawyer has told you that, then he must be reported.
If any lawyer has told that DOL had asked labor to be filed in EB3 instead of EB2, then I have not seen any such communication from DOL. Ask your lawyer to produce that for you or ask him to give this to you in writing. I do not recollect that kind of news. Laws were not changed even if there was recession in 2001-2003. If you think the lawyer has misled you, you must take action against your lawyer. But I do not believe DOL asked people to file in EB3 instead of EB2. If that was the case then we need a proof and IV should look into that.
- IV had anticipated the difficulty in getting legislation this year. Thus we had started the admin fix campaign early this year and had been pushing for it real hard. However we could only get 4K letters from a 30K membership. A lot of them were anonymous. We are still deadlocked on the 3 Lofgren bills. Only 179 people made the calls from IV in the last 1.5 months.
So the solution is there but we need to get massive participation first. People can certainly write to the administration as in the admin fix campaign, but the question is can be have massive participation.
We all really need to brainstorm and come up with an idea that will ensure massive participation and present compelling reasons for administration or lawmakers to act. If you think letter is the best option then get the active members involved in reviewing and revising the draft before you start a campaign. Make a really strong case. IV will welcome anyone leading an effort and working on it aggressively.
more...
house To use any of the clipart
Macaca
04-23 08:32 AM
Lobbyists Profit From Power Shift In Congress As Democrats Get Jobs, Republicans Stay On (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201021.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, April 23, 2007
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
tattoo kids oat
ssa
06-23 04:53 PM
Besides other errors in calculation which have been already discussed above, the numbers assumed here are unrealistic.
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
more...
pictures To use any of the clipart
abracadabra102
01-06 05:36 PM
If we take out the religion from equation, Israelis and Palestines are one people. They belong to same genetic pool and lived together for hundreds of years. In fact it was an Arab Calipha who allowed jews back into israel/palestine area after jews were ejected from this area by Romans. It is a pity they ended up like Indians and Pakistanis (same genetic pool again). Having said that, it is Arab countries that screwed Palestine people after 1948 war with Israel. Israel was willing for a compromise and creation of Palestine.
Taken from wikipedia:
"Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Arab governments at this point refused to set up a State of Palestine."
complete article with several cross references here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine).
Israel is doing what is required of a nation when attacked. It is sad that innocent children are dying. But I do not see any better options left open for Israel. Offcourse they could have done what India does - whine for a few months, complain to every Tom, Dick and Harry and then shut up. But not every one is spineless.
Taken from wikipedia:
"Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Arab governments at this point refused to set up a State of Palestine."
complete article with several cross references here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine).
Israel is doing what is required of a nation when attacked. It is sad that innocent children are dying. But I do not see any better options left open for Israel. Offcourse they could have done what India does - whine for a few months, complain to every Tom, Dick and Harry and then shut up. But not every one is spineless.
dresses Clip Art Fishing Boat 555px.
akred
04-09 12:06 AM
If this bill passes along with CIR, that gives the ability to file for 485 even without visa numbers being available, I think most of the placement companies would file for LC (PERM) as soon as they recruit someone (and get H1 approved). That would allow them to file for 140 and 485. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing something. The processing times for LC(PERM) and for I-140 are not guaranteed. There will be trouble if either of these take an extended amount of time like the multi-year waits that we saw in the recent past. So, the ability to file I-485 without visa number availability will address current filers, but may not protect future filers.
Yes, you are missing something. The processing times for LC(PERM) and for I-140 are not guaranteed. There will be trouble if either of these take an extended amount of time like the multi-year waits that we saw in the recent past. So, the ability to file I-485 without visa number availability will address current filers, but may not protect future filers.
more...
makeup Row Boat Clipart
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:41 PM
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
girlfriend Clip Art by David D Lockhart.
sc3
08-05 06:41 PM
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
hairstyles People Playing Cards Clip Art
texcan
08-05 07:00 PM
In a poor zoo of India, a lion was frustrated as he was offered not more than 1 kg meat a day. The lion thought its prayers were answered when one US Zoo Manager visited the zoo and requested the zoo management to shift the lion to the US Zoo.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
Killer .....
thanks
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
Killer .....
thanks
GCapplicant
07-14 09:26 AM
Why is EB3 India unhappy?
The impression I am getting from all posts is that EB3 is unhappy because EB2 got 2 year advancement in dates. EB3 is unhappy not because of their own retrogression but because someone else is happy being current.
The reason is not justified. EB3 should be unhappy for its own retrogression and not because someone else in EB2 is current. I see a lot of EB3India guys waking up now to the reality and protesting just because EB2 is getting greencads. This approach is wrong. Where were all of you all these months when IV was asking letters for admin fixes? A lot of us were busy enjoying our EADs and suddenly everyone is woken up. Where were all these guys when visa bulletin came every month and dates did not move?
I would support an action item for us EB3 folks only when it is based on the genuine reasons of EB retrogression. If it is based on the reason of EB2 getting greencards and EB3 not getting greencards, it is a wrong immature reason and USCIS or any authority capable of decision making will not like it.
EAD cannot give a solution.We knew that from day 1 .EB3 is unhappy because we havnt got any movement.Will any EB2 here support our cause.I am seeing forums where they have alreday started tracking their LUD's.Fine...Human mentality is when they are out of the problem nobody will turn back.Just becoz we are making fuss out of here there are one or two getting ready to point on us that we are unhappy.How do you expect us to be happy?
How long we have to wait?
3 solid years I was waiting for my 45 day letter then it took 6 months to get my labor approval.atleast if it had moved same like EB2 we can again sit and watch the show.
Fine ,even I feel , this EB2 movement if taken as a possitive movement ,I can expect EB3 ROW to be current by Oct 2008.When they interpret the spillover will that help EB3 single state to move.
Sometimes I do feel this has been done to fail the bills and break the team effort by IV-see how we are questioning ourselves-right? but will any Eb2 care for us-its our mistake to apply in EB3 and beleiving the old tradition.
How many of us are there since 2001 nov.any answer.How long can we wait?its impossible.
The impression I am getting from all posts is that EB3 is unhappy because EB2 got 2 year advancement in dates. EB3 is unhappy not because of their own retrogression but because someone else is happy being current.
The reason is not justified. EB3 should be unhappy for its own retrogression and not because someone else in EB2 is current. I see a lot of EB3India guys waking up now to the reality and protesting just because EB2 is getting greencads. This approach is wrong. Where were all of you all these months when IV was asking letters for admin fixes? A lot of us were busy enjoying our EADs and suddenly everyone is woken up. Where were all these guys when visa bulletin came every month and dates did not move?
I would support an action item for us EB3 folks only when it is based on the genuine reasons of EB retrogression. If it is based on the reason of EB2 getting greencards and EB3 not getting greencards, it is a wrong immature reason and USCIS or any authority capable of decision making will not like it.
EAD cannot give a solution.We knew that from day 1 .EB3 is unhappy because we havnt got any movement.Will any EB2 here support our cause.I am seeing forums where they have alreday started tracking their LUD's.Fine...Human mentality is when they are out of the problem nobody will turn back.Just becoz we are making fuss out of here there are one or two getting ready to point on us that we are unhappy.How do you expect us to be happy?
How long we have to wait?
3 solid years I was waiting for my 45 day letter then it took 6 months to get my labor approval.atleast if it had moved same like EB2 we can again sit and watch the show.
Fine ,even I feel , this EB2 movement if taken as a possitive movement ,I can expect EB3 ROW to be current by Oct 2008.When they interpret the spillover will that help EB3 single state to move.
Sometimes I do feel this has been done to fail the bills and break the team effort by IV-see how we are questioning ourselves-right? but will any Eb2 care for us-its our mistake to apply in EB3 and beleiving the old tradition.
How many of us are there since 2001 nov.any answer.How long can we wait?its impossible.
Amma
12-26 10:24 PM
to clean our bottom. I agree. We have to do it ourselves.However, attacking terror camps in Pak by India is not going to solve the problem.
We are dealing with mad , fanatic , fundemantalistic army with weak democratic government.I think majority of Pak citizens are like us.They don't want war. The ideal way is squeeze that country by economic sanctions, international seperation etc.
If we attack even the so called terror camps, the Laskar e Toiba people will be gone long time ago. May be we have to satisfy by killing the some innocent Pak citizens by those surgical attacks.
World policeman America did the similar cleaning business by arming the fanatics in Afganistan to oust Soviet army from Afganistan. The devil nourished by America with support of Saitan ISI is biting back US now.
Israel is not sleeping peacefully. OK they won the six days war by preemptive strike of Egypt. What happened now ? Stupid palestinan Hamas fire two rockets killing two isralies inturn killing of twenty innocent paletinaian by brutal isral army. Is the middle east problem solved by preemptive attack or postemptive attack? It will be solved by mutual giving and taking not by war.
You don't want to get tore away your front and back by fighting with lunatic Pak military. You may destroy the Pakistan, but you will be without front to
--- and back to ----.You means not you. Our brave Indian soldiers.You will be sitting in your airconditioned room , watching the live relay in CNN of Indo-Pak war and happy with mutual assured destruction the war will bring on both poor countries.
So, let US army to attack the so called camps .They are already doing in the Afgan-Pak border. Let them tilt their gun little bit more so that the camps on POK also get hit.
It is foolish to get killed.Let the other man do the job for you.Let the world policeman do what it preaches. " War on terror ".
We are dealing with mad , fanatic , fundemantalistic army with weak democratic government.I think majority of Pak citizens are like us.They don't want war. The ideal way is squeeze that country by economic sanctions, international seperation etc.
If we attack even the so called terror camps, the Laskar e Toiba people will be gone long time ago. May be we have to satisfy by killing the some innocent Pak citizens by those surgical attacks.
World policeman America did the similar cleaning business by arming the fanatics in Afganistan to oust Soviet army from Afganistan. The devil nourished by America with support of Saitan ISI is biting back US now.
Israel is not sleeping peacefully. OK they won the six days war by preemptive strike of Egypt. What happened now ? Stupid palestinan Hamas fire two rockets killing two isralies inturn killing of twenty innocent paletinaian by brutal isral army. Is the middle east problem solved by preemptive attack or postemptive attack? It will be solved by mutual giving and taking not by war.
You don't want to get tore away your front and back by fighting with lunatic Pak military. You may destroy the Pakistan, but you will be without front to
--- and back to ----.You means not you. Our brave Indian soldiers.You will be sitting in your airconditioned room , watching the live relay in CNN of Indo-Pak war and happy with mutual assured destruction the war will bring on both poor countries.
So, let US army to attack the so called camps .They are already doing in the Afgan-Pak border. Let them tilt their gun little bit more so that the camps on POK also get hit.
It is foolish to get killed.Let the other man do the job for you.Let the world policeman do what it preaches. " War on terror ".
No comments:
Post a Comment