insbaby
03-24 04:34 PM
(my final thoughts ...)
I am from bombay -- and actually we had more fun in the buildings / apartments because you end up spending more time outdoors with friends.
I agree with you. But not all the people have the same luxury here as you may or may not see an apartment fills with people you look for and who can stay for a while at the same place, except bay area and couple of other areas filled up nationals of same countries. But surely not all over the country.
So it is not a bad thing to move to a community if you find all in one place.
Ofcourse, this is not to force everyone to buy a home and practically that is not possible.
This is for someone who knows that he has plans to go with the current company for sometime and ready to buy a home, but just waiting, waiting and waiting........ for GC to do that.
I am from bombay -- and actually we had more fun in the buildings / apartments because you end up spending more time outdoors with friends.
I agree with you. But not all the people have the same luxury here as you may or may not see an apartment fills with people you look for and who can stay for a while at the same place, except bay area and couple of other areas filled up nationals of same countries. But surely not all over the country.
So it is not a bad thing to move to a community if you find all in one place.
Ofcourse, this is not to force everyone to buy a home and practically that is not possible.
This is for someone who knows that he has plans to go with the current company for sometime and ready to buy a home, but just waiting, waiting and waiting........ for GC to do that.
wallpaper Angelina Jolie gets very
hiralal
06-07 09:50 PM
I definitely agree with the post above :). ..here is another article ..not the best bit vague but still good ..it came in just now on cnbc
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
obviously
04-10 12:41 PM
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
2011 angelina-jolie-in-vitro-
unseenguy
06-20 04:10 PM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
I would agree if rent = monthly payment, then buying would make sense. On the west coast ca/or/wa, the rent where i live is 1500 (2b 2b), however; when I buy a house , I want a 4br so that I am in for rest of my life. Those houses are 550K, with monthly payment of 2700 usd per month. Does not make sense to go for it at the moment
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
I would agree if rent = monthly payment, then buying would make sense. On the west coast ca/or/wa, the rent where i live is 1500 (2b 2b), however; when I buy a house , I want a 4br so that I am in for rest of my life. Those houses are 550K, with monthly payment of 2700 usd per month. Does not make sense to go for it at the moment
more...
xyzgc
12-28 01:56 AM
I am begining to beleive that WAR is not the answer, even though for the past 20 odd years, they have bled Kashmir, driven certain relegion members out, making them penniless, killing some of them and their family members mercilessly, doing the same in punjab (thanks to KPS Gill that was eradicated from the core), and using India's peace meaures in the last 7 odd years to infilitrate members who have created havoc in India.
What India needs to do is strengthen internal security ('our sardar.....the chief...respectfully meant as i am a admirer of him, has done the right think by bringing in his most trusted man, PC to run home ministry....that man has been an asset in which ever position he has held....man of v.v. high integrity and honesty like our chief)
Secondly as i said before,...... the super powers also are pretty much behind India and will not make the same mistake as they have done in the past as they know that this is universal/global problem...and the doublespeak will not work...the worry is....who to talk to there...(neighbouring country)....there are so many power centres....its total chaos....so i agree we should not go for war as that could be disastrous and open a exit strategy for all the dangerous elements and give them a longer/extended life to survive..........and continue with their nonsense......globally....WHY because once the war breaks out these dangerous elements will use their deadly toys that they have been provided with thanks to some of the regional powers....who....will then step in and insist on a dialogure....peace...etc etc..
I am also surprised how sri lanka has agreed to go ahead with their cricket tour...i mean come on such a huge incident....in India....clear evidence...and to think and we sacrified a leader(possible PM) for them....STRANGE Behaviour....
Without doubt, the internal security needs to be strenghtened. That is absolutely necessary. But is that sufficient?
Why spend $26 billion yearly on defence budgets, if we are not to fire a single missile, worrying about the repercussions and what the dangerous elements will do?
Is this only to be used in another Kargil-like war? WIf the answer is yes, that at least we should reduce our defence spending and divert it to make our nation secure. There is no possibility of that happening either.
What is the probablity of another Kargil when a single terrorist attack is sufficient to throw the country into chaos?
The whole idea is to destroy these terrorist outfits. Pakistan is not doing it. Should we not do it using our own arms?
What India needs to do is strengthen internal security ('our sardar.....the chief...respectfully meant as i am a admirer of him, has done the right think by bringing in his most trusted man, PC to run home ministry....that man has been an asset in which ever position he has held....man of v.v. high integrity and honesty like our chief)
Secondly as i said before,...... the super powers also are pretty much behind India and will not make the same mistake as they have done in the past as they know that this is universal/global problem...and the doublespeak will not work...the worry is....who to talk to there...(neighbouring country)....there are so many power centres....its total chaos....so i agree we should not go for war as that could be disastrous and open a exit strategy for all the dangerous elements and give them a longer/extended life to survive..........and continue with their nonsense......globally....WHY because once the war breaks out these dangerous elements will use their deadly toys that they have been provided with thanks to some of the regional powers....who....will then step in and insist on a dialogure....peace...etc etc..
I am also surprised how sri lanka has agreed to go ahead with their cricket tour...i mean come on such a huge incident....in India....clear evidence...and to think and we sacrified a leader(possible PM) for them....STRANGE Behaviour....
Without doubt, the internal security needs to be strenghtened. That is absolutely necessary. But is that sufficient?
Why spend $26 billion yearly on defence budgets, if we are not to fire a single missile, worrying about the repercussions and what the dangerous elements will do?
Is this only to be used in another Kargil-like war? WIf the answer is yes, that at least we should reduce our defence spending and divert it to make our nation secure. There is no possibility of that happening either.
What is the probablity of another Kargil when a single terrorist attack is sufficient to throw the country into chaos?
The whole idea is to destroy these terrorist outfits. Pakistan is not doing it. Should we not do it using our own arms?
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
more...
jonty_11
08-02 12:07 PM
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
2010 A sexy girl cutting herself in
eb3_nepa
11-21 05:49 PM
So wait a minute!
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
more...
yagw
08-20 02:40 AM
Little Johny's first day in pre-school, the teacher gave a little test. She asked the kids to close their eyes and stick the tongue out. She then put honey drops and asked them to guess what it is. When no one was able to, the teacher decided to give a hint.
"children, its how your mom calls your dad.. well, most of the time anyways"
On hearing this, Little Johny screamed, "SPIT IT OUT GUYS... ITS A** HOLE"
"children, its how your mom calls your dad.. well, most of the time anyways"
On hearing this, Little Johny screamed, "SPIT IT OUT GUYS... ITS A** HOLE"
hair The girls are only getting
unitednations
08-09 02:20 PM
While most of us here have US Citizenship as their long term goal, they overlook that fact and focus on manipulating stuff to get a GC which might have severe consequences while applying for Naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn�t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn�t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is �Good Moral Character�. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn�t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn�t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don�t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
I second that notion. Although very rare that uscis adjudicators can go that deep in naturalization; it isn't over when you get a greencard, contrary to what many people think.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn�t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn�t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is �Good Moral Character�. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn�t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn�t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don�t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
I second that notion. Although very rare that uscis adjudicators can go that deep in naturalization; it isn't over when you get a greencard, contrary to what many people think.
more...
unitednations
03-26 03:24 PM
UnitedNations,
So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?
cinqsit
what i have learned is uscis can do anything at any time if they want to.
They have different legal cases that they would use if they thought companies/people were doing things that they didn't like. From all the research/cases I have seen, come across; I concluded that uscis could apply these cases to everyone if they wish.
However; they do not apply it to everyone.
The h-1b defnesor vs. meissner is something that california service center has beendoing for many, many years and everyone has adjusted to it who file through california.
However; vermont never used that case. Now; they are using that case as a justification to deny h-1b's across the board for staffing companies because they think there is a lot of fraud involved in the petitions. Califiornia; doesn't apply the case becasue they think there is fraud but rather they are doing what they think is lawful.
That's why I tell everyone that before you start getting into advoacy; you have to know all the powers that USCIS has and how they can really start making things difficult for everyone.
Right now; they are not using that case on 140's. If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll (this will generally be the case as consultants come and go and use ac21) then there might be a shift.
In last eight years; most of the public memos issued by uscis have been employee/candidate friendly. However, those memos can change at any time based on economic and political winds.
So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?
cinqsit
what i have learned is uscis can do anything at any time if they want to.
They have different legal cases that they would use if they thought companies/people were doing things that they didn't like. From all the research/cases I have seen, come across; I concluded that uscis could apply these cases to everyone if they wish.
However; they do not apply it to everyone.
The h-1b defnesor vs. meissner is something that california service center has beendoing for many, many years and everyone has adjusted to it who file through california.
However; vermont never used that case. Now; they are using that case as a justification to deny h-1b's across the board for staffing companies because they think there is a lot of fraud involved in the petitions. Califiornia; doesn't apply the case becasue they think there is fraud but rather they are doing what they think is lawful.
That's why I tell everyone that before you start getting into advoacy; you have to know all the powers that USCIS has and how they can really start making things difficult for everyone.
Right now; they are not using that case on 140's. If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll (this will generally be the case as consultants come and go and use ac21) then there might be a shift.
In last eight years; most of the public memos issued by uscis have been employee/candidate friendly. However, those memos can change at any time based on economic and political winds.
hot The actress herself has
matreen
07-13 07:26 PM
I think we should support this letter and push for it.
I understand IV is doing a great job towards our issues and at the same time CIS putting their efforts to come up with some kind of solutions and they are making changes to resolve the backlog issue.
CIS better understand that EB3 preference also backloged not only EB2 and required some attention. Why don't they inherit the left over visas for fiscal year to both catageries not only EB2 to balance movement. This is also a acceptable change if we fight in order to clear the backlog for both the catageries....EB3 can't be ignored 100%......we are also hoping and dreaming our future and can't live blindly by doing nothing....
Definatley we need IV support on this to have justice with EB3.
Thanks IV.
I understand IV is doing a great job towards our issues and at the same time CIS putting their efforts to come up with some kind of solutions and they are making changes to resolve the backlog issue.
CIS better understand that EB3 preference also backloged not only EB2 and required some attention. Why don't they inherit the left over visas for fiscal year to both catageries not only EB2 to balance movement. This is also a acceptable change if we fight in order to clear the backlog for both the catageries....EB3 can't be ignored 100%......we are also hoping and dreaming our future and can't live blindly by doing nothing....
Definatley we need IV support on this to have justice with EB3.
Thanks IV.
more...
house #39;Angelina (Jolie) has matured
xyzgc
12-17 04:27 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should HIV-Hindu Immigration Voice. Now
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
tattoo Actress Angelina Jolie tells
jgh_res
06-20 09:39 AM
I went from 3 green's to 6 red's. I am not sure what I did to deserve this. I just expressed my opinion and provided facts on which I based my opinion.
How do I know who gave me the red's?
It's just not all media hype. I live in fairfax county and in the last 3 months any house that was listed at market price got sold. I have 3 friends that bought houses in the last few months.
In Arlington County, the median sale price was up 11 percent to $469,000 and 239 homes were sold � up nearly 5 percent from the same month a year ago.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/08/daily55.html
I am not saying that this is the right time to buy or anything like that. All I am saying is "Its just not media hype".
How do I know who gave me the red's?
It's just not all media hype. I live in fairfax county and in the last 3 months any house that was listed at market price got sold. I have 3 friends that bought houses in the last few months.
In Arlington County, the median sale price was up 11 percent to $469,000 and 239 homes were sold � up nearly 5 percent from the same month a year ago.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/08/daily55.html
I am not saying that this is the right time to buy or anything like that. All I am saying is "Its just not media hype".
more...
pictures Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
like_watching_paint_dry
07-16 10:10 AM
Don't yell at me. I agree with most of you guys. I am also a masters degree holder from a US university and waiting for my GC and I think the body shops created most of the bad reputations for the h1-bs. Even though some of you say it is a small percentage, I disagree. If we also push for some h1-b reform, may be we can get what we want. Usually a bill develop as a package.
Some one asked for the name of a body shop. I could provide that if you think there will be some action against them.
If you go to anti-H1-b sites, They are displaying things like, Advertisements listing H1-b available for a number of US cities. These are ads taken from body shops. The anti-h1-b sites use this as a propaganda. I think it hurts all of us. :D
If you hold an advanced degree from a good school in the US, then you are usually one of the most sought after professionals in this country. If you think you are not among the best and the brightest and you deserved to end up in a hole like the one you are talking about, the least you still do is keep your self respect and abide by the laws.
You can definitely help by initiating action against the offending body-shop guy. DOL/CIS have stepped up enforcement and are going after such violators. It is not legal to "bench" an employee and not pay the offered wages or pay below the prevailing wage specified in the Labor Condition Application form filed by your employer. I'm not sure but I've probably read that asking the employee to pay the immigration processing costs is not legal either.
DOL/CIS has forms for reporting these kind of violators. If you do not do this, that same body shop will do the exact same thing to the next person tomorrow. And that next guy could be your younger brother or sister.
You can use these forms and file a complaint:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/forms/whd/WH-4.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/htm/charge.htm
Some one asked for the name of a body shop. I could provide that if you think there will be some action against them.
If you go to anti-H1-b sites, They are displaying things like, Advertisements listing H1-b available for a number of US cities. These are ads taken from body shops. The anti-h1-b sites use this as a propaganda. I think it hurts all of us. :D
If you hold an advanced degree from a good school in the US, then you are usually one of the most sought after professionals in this country. If you think you are not among the best and the brightest and you deserved to end up in a hole like the one you are talking about, the least you still do is keep your self respect and abide by the laws.
You can definitely help by initiating action against the offending body-shop guy. DOL/CIS have stepped up enforcement and are going after such violators. It is not legal to "bench" an employee and not pay the offered wages or pay below the prevailing wage specified in the Labor Condition Application form filed by your employer. I'm not sure but I've probably read that asking the employee to pay the immigration processing costs is not legal either.
DOL/CIS has forms for reporting these kind of violators. If you do not do this, that same body shop will do the exact same thing to the next person tomorrow. And that next guy could be your younger brother or sister.
You can use these forms and file a complaint:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/forms/whd/WH-4.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/htm/charge.htm
dresses has branded Angelina Jolie
mariner5555
04-15 04:18 PM
I just want to list the difference in your home purchase decision when you have GC vs. you are in H1B/EAD.
GC - You can splurge a little. Even if you have to move, you are almost certain that you are able to move within the US, or will be able to come back to the US. You will get better interest rates on a mortgage and a higher percentage of financing (upto 97%). You can buy your dream home (this usually means a nice community, big house etc. etc.) Even if the value of your purchase comes down, you can afford to wait for a longer period of time.
H1/EAD - Think 10 times before purchasing a home. Take a conservative approach. If you think you can really afford a $400,000 house, purchase only a $350,000 house. Prepare to pay around 8% down-payment (some times even 20%) and you may not get the best interest rate. Plan very well for the possibility that you may have to move within the US or even out of the country. And prepare some plans considering that you may have to go out of the US and may not be able to come back. Consider the possibility of renting a town home or a single family home. In this market, you can even find homes by paying a rent which could be some times lower than the mortgage on the home. I agree with what h1tech has said ..and that is good advice. I guess there is enough info on this thread and hopefully people will take right decisions (so I will stop for the time being). btw ..nobody said bigger house is not better if everything else is constant .. maybe people are misreading things.
and I guess inspite of all these arguments ..people will rush to buy ..which is good too ..as it helps the economy.. ( I guess some like to shoot themselves in the foot ..).
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080415/foreclosure_rates.html
note - ARMS will reset in may / june (the batch that is referred below) ..which means many of these will foreclose in early 2009.
-----
The onslaught of homes facing foreclosures has yet to ebb, a research report showed Tuesday, with bank repossessions skyrocketing last month as more troubled homeowners mailed in their keys and walked away.
And the worst isn't over: the wave of adjustable-rate loans resetting to higher rates will crest in May and June. And that's expected to push more homeowners into default and foreclosure in the third and fourth quarters of this year, according to RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, Calif.
"Once we're through that batch of loans, the worst will have been worked through the system," said Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac's vice president of marketing.
He estimates between 750,000 and 1 million bank-owned properties will hit the market this year, or about a quarter of the homes up for sale. In some areas, these properties will continue to slow sales and depress prices further.
----------
GC - You can splurge a little. Even if you have to move, you are almost certain that you are able to move within the US, or will be able to come back to the US. You will get better interest rates on a mortgage and a higher percentage of financing (upto 97%). You can buy your dream home (this usually means a nice community, big house etc. etc.) Even if the value of your purchase comes down, you can afford to wait for a longer period of time.
H1/EAD - Think 10 times before purchasing a home. Take a conservative approach. If you think you can really afford a $400,000 house, purchase only a $350,000 house. Prepare to pay around 8% down-payment (some times even 20%) and you may not get the best interest rate. Plan very well for the possibility that you may have to move within the US or even out of the country. And prepare some plans considering that you may have to go out of the US and may not be able to come back. Consider the possibility of renting a town home or a single family home. In this market, you can even find homes by paying a rent which could be some times lower than the mortgage on the home. I agree with what h1tech has said ..and that is good advice. I guess there is enough info on this thread and hopefully people will take right decisions (so I will stop for the time being). btw ..nobody said bigger house is not better if everything else is constant .. maybe people are misreading things.
and I guess inspite of all these arguments ..people will rush to buy ..which is good too ..as it helps the economy.. ( I guess some like to shoot themselves in the foot ..).
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080415/foreclosure_rates.html
note - ARMS will reset in may / june (the batch that is referred below) ..which means many of these will foreclose in early 2009.
-----
The onslaught of homes facing foreclosures has yet to ebb, a research report showed Tuesday, with bank repossessions skyrocketing last month as more troubled homeowners mailed in their keys and walked away.
And the worst isn't over: the wave of adjustable-rate loans resetting to higher rates will crest in May and June. And that's expected to push more homeowners into default and foreclosure in the third and fourth quarters of this year, according to RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, Calif.
"Once we're through that batch of loans, the worst will have been worked through the system," said Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac's vice president of marketing.
He estimates between 750,000 and 1 million bank-owned properties will hit the market this year, or about a quarter of the homes up for sale. In some areas, these properties will continue to slow sales and depress prices further.
----------
more...
makeup Plush: Angelina Jolie has
go_guy123
09-27 12:31 PM
It's only the visa numbers...if not 1 year,it will be on the road by two years.Cheer up...I myself have negative feelings what will happen to my family future here.I just talk to myself,Whether I have to apply for Canadian PR for back up.It sure does kill our minds.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
Canada PR can no longer be backup...since 2002 the new rules have are requiring Canadian PRs to physically stay in Canada for 2 out of 5 years to
maintain PR.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
Canada PR can no longer be backup...since 2002 the new rules have are requiring Canadian PRs to physically stay in Canada for 2 out of 5 years to
maintain PR.
girlfriend Angelina Jolie has been super
LostInGCProcess
08-05 02:59 PM
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
hairstyles Angelina Jolie is voted best
chintu25
08-28 09:42 AM
Two immigrants have just arrived in the United States and one says to the other, I hear that the people of this country actually eat dogs.�
�That�s odd,� her companion replies, �but if we are going to live in America, we might as well do as the Americans do.�
Nodding emphatically, one of the immigrants points to a hot dog vendor, and they both walk toward the cart. �Two dogs, please,� she says.
The vendor is only too pleased to oblige, wraps both hot dogs in foil and hands them over the counter. Excited, the companions hurry to a bench and begin to unwrap their �dogs.�
One of them opens the foil and begins to blush. Staring at it for a moment, she turns to her friend and whispers cautiously, �What part did you get?�
;)
�That�s odd,� her companion replies, �but if we are going to live in America, we might as well do as the Americans do.�
Nodding emphatically, one of the immigrants points to a hot dog vendor, and they both walk toward the cart. �Two dogs, please,� she says.
The vendor is only too pleased to oblige, wraps both hot dogs in foil and hands them over the counter. Excited, the companions hurry to a bench and begin to unwrap their �dogs.�
One of them opens the foil and begins to blush. Staring at it for a moment, she turns to her friend and whispers cautiously, �What part did you get?�
;)
willwin
07-14 09:03 AM
Sure sometimes change can bring hard-luck, but remember that if you want to change your luck at my expense purely based on your length of wait and regardless of skill level as established by law, then DON'T expect me to not push back. Another letter countering the position can always be written in an individual if not collective capacity.
I also wonder where was all this thought about change and hard-luck when EB2-I was shafted last year and numbers spilt over to EB3ROW.
Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place. They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3! Because, US needs people from all categories.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
I also wonder where was all this thought about change and hard-luck when EB2-I was shafted last year and numbers spilt over to EB3ROW.
Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place. They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3! Because, US needs people from all categories.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.
lfwf
08-06 04:19 PM
I thought you ported pascal's id :)
:D
:D
No comments:
Post a Comment