Macaca
12-23 11:04 AM
'D' in Democrats means Do-Nothing (http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7792528?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) BUSH, REPUBLICANS GET THEIR WAY ON MOST ISSUES DESPITE VOTERS' MANDATE TO CHANGE DIRECTION Mercury News Editorial, 12/23/2007
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.
But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.
On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.
Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.
Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.
Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.
After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.
Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.
Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.
President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.
But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.
Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.
However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.
On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.
Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.
"I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.
wallpaper police ackground check?
aachoo
03-24 02:21 PM
I'm sure you meant Larry David ;)
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
setpit_gc
08-06 11:36 AM
Rolling Flood,
Please go ahead file your law suit. Why are you wasting your time here?.
Come back and say that it has been filed.
Please go ahead file your law suit. Why are you wasting your time here?.
Come back and say that it has been filed.
2011 easily do ackground check
unitednations
08-03 01:52 PM
Hi United Nation,
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
No; it is not hard to use.
However; the way people use labor substitution, future base employment, labors in fast processing states, going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; job descriptions not matching, companies getting ability to pay queries on approved cases; uscis changing their interpretations of laws/regulations, people getting off h-1b after six years.... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
No; it is not hard to use.
However; the way people use labor substitution, future base employment, labors in fast processing states, going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; job descriptions not matching, companies getting ability to pay queries on approved cases; uscis changing their interpretations of laws/regulations, people getting off h-1b after six years.... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:49 PM
I was recently riding with a friend of mine.
We were coming to a red light, and he shoots right through it. I ask him, "Why'd you do that?" He tells me this is how his brother drives.
We come to another red light, and again, he shoots right through it. I ask him, "Why'd you do that?" Again, he tells me this is how his brother drives.
We come to a green light, and he SLAMS on the brakes. My heart nearly goes into my throat. I shouted at him, "Why'd You Do That?!"
He replied, "You never know, my brother could be coming the other way."
We were coming to a red light, and he shoots right through it. I ask him, "Why'd you do that?" He tells me this is how his brother drives.
We come to another red light, and again, he shoots right through it. I ask him, "Why'd you do that?" Again, he tells me this is how his brother drives.
We come to a green light, and he SLAMS on the brakes. My heart nearly goes into my throat. I shouted at him, "Why'd You Do That?!"
He replied, "You never know, my brother could be coming the other way."
riva2005
05-16 01:37 PM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
more...
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
2010 The Life of a Background Check
desi3933
07-12 10:34 AM
No one??
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
mariner5555
04-16 04:50 AM
probably you have change your handle from iwantmygreen to iamgreenwithenvy. dude, first of all who made you the judge, second of all how and why did you assume that I bought a costly home?. I went in for a townhome not far from where Mr Marinner lives, going by his posts I know he lives in or near atlanta. also, we are on single income and I can happily afford the mortgage for my small home and ofcourse my kid is happy.
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
hair doing a ackground check.
thakurrajiv
03-26 03:32 PM
I agree that credit crunch is worst we have ever seen and the worst is still about 9-12 months away. A lot of investment banks are going to be in trouble. I work for a big financial services comp and even though they say they are not affected, I know that their 'high-yeild low-risk' funds lost around $30billion. Who pays for this? investors? hmm China/Japan.. maybe. But Ben Bernanke is keen on doing whatever it takes to jumstart the economy. So he is printing dollars and reducing interest rates to historic lows(considering 60 year cycles). When I bought my first home in 2001, the rate was 8.5%. Whats it now 5.5%?
So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). Well in times of inflation your savings/investment is better in real-estate than anything else. But definitely NOT cash.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
I believe that having a job(well paid) in recession is an investors dream as everything is on SALE.
"So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). "
Interesting, so you are saying buy house because inflation will be high for next 3-4 months !! Personally I will not buy house based on what happens in next 3-4 months.
Stock market is more liquid than RE. Did the market go to the same levels after dot com burst ? How many years did it take to even feel normal in stock market ?
In real terms, house prices have doubled from 1999 to 2005. This has never ever happened in history. Till date in most US housing markets we have seen correction of less than 10%. Do you think house prices have bottomed out ? Even if house prices fall further by 30% you will still be at historical high prices in real terms.
I think the big question is is this bubble burst or just a cyclical correction ? Most of the arguments in this thread have been based on thoughts that it is cyclical correction.
Imagine what will happen to house prices if its indeed a bubble burst ( which I beleive in). 20% down from here in not much !!
I think this is time to sit on fence and let things settle down. Patience is the name of the game.
So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). Well in times of inflation your savings/investment is better in real-estate than anything else. But definitely NOT cash.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
I believe that having a job(well paid) in recession is an investors dream as everything is on SALE.
"So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). "
Interesting, so you are saying buy house because inflation will be high for next 3-4 months !! Personally I will not buy house based on what happens in next 3-4 months.
Stock market is more liquid than RE. Did the market go to the same levels after dot com burst ? How many years did it take to even feel normal in stock market ?
In real terms, house prices have doubled from 1999 to 2005. This has never ever happened in history. Till date in most US housing markets we have seen correction of less than 10%. Do you think house prices have bottomed out ? Even if house prices fall further by 30% you will still be at historical high prices in real terms.
I think the big question is is this bubble burst or just a cyclical correction ? Most of the arguments in this thread have been based on thoughts that it is cyclical correction.
Imagine what will happen to house prices if its indeed a bubble burst ( which I beleive in). 20% down from here in not much !!
I think this is time to sit on fence and let things settle down. Patience is the name of the game.
more...
quizzer
04-08 04:19 PM
I look at this bill in a different perspective:
1. This will give the Indian IT companies an opportunity to move up the value chain. Rather than body shop its employees to clients...they can have all the IT work done at its development locations. Also they can fill americans for half of its US workforce.
2. It will put an end to 100% H1b bodyshoppers who just make money without having any office and putting their employees onto client locations. These scrupulous bodyshops even dont pay on bench.
Thanks
1. This will give the Indian IT companies an opportunity to move up the value chain. Rather than body shop its employees to clients...they can have all the IT work done at its development locations. Also they can fill americans for half of its US workforce.
2. It will put an end to 100% H1b bodyshoppers who just make money without having any office and putting their employees onto client locations. These scrupulous bodyshops even dont pay on bench.
Thanks
hot ackground check app 1
go_guy123
07-28 03:37 PM
The most likely scenario next year is Republican House and Dem senate with lower seat difference. This is a disaster for any type of immigration. Senate would be only pro-illegal and house against any kind of immigration.
On top of it the only political agenda would be 2012 Presidential election. So 2011-2012 are No-No years for anything good on immigration.
On the other hand you can expect several anti-immigration bills passing with more and more venom in each bill as the clock ticks and enforcement drive firing on all cylinders.
yes its a NO NO for any amnesty...things will get better once skilled immigrants can seprate from the illegal immigrant lobby. Thats what happened in 2000
On top of it the only political agenda would be 2012 Presidential election. So 2011-2012 are No-No years for anything good on immigration.
On the other hand you can expect several anti-immigration bills passing with more and more venom in each bill as the clock ticks and enforcement drive firing on all cylinders.
yes its a NO NO for any amnesty...things will get better once skilled immigrants can seprate from the illegal immigrant lobby. Thats what happened in 2000
more...
house Online Background Check
suavesandeep
06-23 10:49 PM
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
I completely agree with you.. I seriously dont understand what pride/ownership people feel by making 5% or best case 20% downpayment, Where the bank owns most of the house. It only truly yours when you have fully paid for it. To cite comparisons to our parents is plain foolish. Most of our parents bought their first homes by outright paying for it and having the home in their own name and not any BANK. Dont get me wrong, Not that i am pro renting and against home buying. I hope to have a bank financed home like everybody else in the near future. But i seriously would not feel any pride of ownership without actually owning it in the real sense. I fully own both my cars and feel proud about them :).
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
I completely agree with you.. I seriously dont understand what pride/ownership people feel by making 5% or best case 20% downpayment, Where the bank owns most of the house. It only truly yours when you have fully paid for it. To cite comparisons to our parents is plain foolish. Most of our parents bought their first homes by outright paying for it and having the home in their own name and not any BANK. Dont get me wrong, Not that i am pro renting and against home buying. I hope to have a bank financed home like everybody else in the near future. But i seriously would not feel any pride of ownership without actually owning it in the real sense. I fully own both my cars and feel proud about them :).
tattoo Background Check Kentucky
xyzgc
12-27 01:29 AM
great posts by alisa, gcisadawg and abcdgc. I don't agree with alisa but the posts are decent.
more...
pictures backround
dixie
02-02 01:17 PM
You seriously think Lou does not know that ? I would expect a former anchor of CNN Money to know the basics of US tax laws. Alas, he also knows the average americans who view his show are too lazy to do any research by themselves - all this is a deliberate misinformation campaign to make the middle class angry and believe immigrants are responsible for their perceived decline in standard of living. In the process his ratings are going through the roof, and of course CNN doesn't have a problem with that. What to expect from such a person ? We are lucky he is yet to blame immigrants for the mess in Iraq (he has even blamed them for the mess after hurricane katrina !!!!!).
this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)
[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems
dresses Yes, Background Check App is
sanju
12-20 07:02 PM
Religions reminds me of trunk monkey. Folks from WA state will know what I am talking about.
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
more...
makeup Online ackground checks are
sledge_hammer
06-26 04:55 PM
FYI - Historical Census of Housing Tables - Home Values (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)
If you work based on the historic values of price and rent appreciation - it should not make any difference.
How? Just like the "fundamental" of any stocks price is how much money that company makes - the fundamental of a home price is the rent it can fetch in the market. So the home price and the rent will always increase at approximately the same rate.
With that assumption, you will benefit from a "fixed mortgage payment" only if your home price/rent increases > inflation. Based on historic numbers - I doubt we can assume this to be the case.
The period "right now" - is an aberration. I would caution everybody against using our intuitions honed in the debt fueled binge between 1980 to now. Cold hard numbers based on some quantifiable assumptions are better bets.
>> People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
Until inflation eats away at their "wealth" in the form of a house. :-). Markets are far more powerful and has a lot more tools at its disposal than people in denial.
If you work based on the historic values of price and rent appreciation - it should not make any difference.
How? Just like the "fundamental" of any stocks price is how much money that company makes - the fundamental of a home price is the rent it can fetch in the market. So the home price and the rent will always increase at approximately the same rate.
With that assumption, you will benefit from a "fixed mortgage payment" only if your home price/rent increases > inflation. Based on historic numbers - I doubt we can assume this to be the case.
The period "right now" - is an aberration. I would caution everybody against using our intuitions honed in the debt fueled binge between 1980 to now. Cold hard numbers based on some quantifiable assumptions are better bets.
>> People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
Until inflation eats away at their "wealth" in the form of a house. :-). Markets are far more powerful and has a lot more tools at its disposal than people in denial.
girlfriend Criminal Background Check
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
hairstyles Background Check Employee
srikondoji
08-14 09:11 AM
On TV, when someone barks without any research backing it up, there is no one to counter him.
Only few shows have a chance to counter, but again the anchor is so smart that he will make sure that his guest receives little time to attack the host.
Guys the world is all about who is powerfull.
It is time to go to gym.
bye
How the hell did he arrive at that figure ? the whole trouble with lou is he fabricates "research" such as the above statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. So much for the Harvard educated economist in him.
Only few shows have a chance to counter, but again the anchor is so smart that he will make sure that his guest receives little time to attack the host.
Guys the world is all about who is powerfull.
It is time to go to gym.
bye
How the hell did he arrive at that figure ? the whole trouble with lou is he fabricates "research" such as the above statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. So much for the Harvard educated economist in him.
Macaca
02-29 09:03 PM
Oracle Unit Lobbied on Patents, Visas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803503.html) Associated Press, Feb 28
WASHINGTON -- A unit of business software maker Oracle Corp. paid VAR II LLC $140,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government .
The firm lobbied Congress on a patent reform bill and immigration reform legislation related to visas for high-tech workers, according to the form posted online Feb. 13 by the Senate's public records office. Oracle USA Inc. paid the firm $140,000 in the second half of 2007 to lobby on those issues after hiring VAR II earlier last year.
The House last year approved a patent-reform bill intended to reduce litigation, improve patent quality and establish a post-approval evaluation process. Technology and financial services firms support the legislation, but pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies said it would weaken patent protection by reducing infringement penalties. The Senate is considering similar legislation.
Oracle is based in Redwood City, Calif.
Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.
WASHINGTON -- A unit of business software maker Oracle Corp. paid VAR II LLC $140,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government .
The firm lobbied Congress on a patent reform bill and immigration reform legislation related to visas for high-tech workers, according to the form posted online Feb. 13 by the Senate's public records office. Oracle USA Inc. paid the firm $140,000 in the second half of 2007 to lobby on those issues after hiring VAR II earlier last year.
The House last year approved a patent-reform bill intended to reduce litigation, improve patent quality and establish a post-approval evaluation process. Technology and financial services firms support the legislation, but pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies said it would weaken patent protection by reducing infringement penalties. The Senate is considering similar legislation.
Oracle is based in Redwood City, Calif.
Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.
SunnySurya
08-05 02:56 PM
I just got several red dots for expressing my opinions...
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario