LOL!
Nice to see some light moments here :)
Nice to see some light moments here :)
wallpaper Kristen Stewart Smokey Eye
Mr. X going to airport with his friend for the first time...
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
UN,
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
2011 A black smokey eye by
The requirement 2f is good and now the companies can not exploid the H-1B cap.
The requirement 2g is good too. There are lot of consulting companies don't pay properly to the employee though they charge lot of money from the client. This requirement at-least restrict employer who makes lot of money and buying multiple house, playing in the stock market, drinking in the bar, doing research by sleeping.
There are lot of consulting companies fake the resume and says that candidate has more than 5 years of experience but actually candidate has only few months of text book experience. How do you differentiate such people with actual experience?
Personally, I hate the consulting companies who just aims to make money instead of running business genuinely.
-Kuppa
The requirement 2g is good too. There are lot of consulting companies don't pay properly to the employee though they charge lot of money from the client. This requirement at-least restrict employer who makes lot of money and buying multiple house, playing in the stock market, drinking in the bar, doing research by sleeping.
There are lot of consulting companies fake the resume and says that candidate has more than 5 years of experience but actually candidate has only few months of text book experience. How do you differentiate such people with actual experience?
Personally, I hate the consulting companies who just aims to make money instead of running business genuinely.
-Kuppa
what did that dumb O bama do with 60 senators and 260 congress democrats in the house-------GHANTA.......he is the most useless guy on earth....
Indians always seem to think Democrats will help them but they are like our Indian politicians only, all promises no action
Come the November Elections, Dems could lose 10 in Senate..
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
Indians always seem to think Democrats will help them but they are like our Indian politicians only, all promises no action
Come the November Elections, Dems could lose 10 in Senate..
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
Visa Case Lawyer Reveals Infosys Tactics (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/30/visa-case-lawyer-reveals-infosys-tactics/) By Amol Sharma and Megha Bahree | IndiaRealTime
The lawyer for the U.S. employee of Infosys Technologies Ltd. who is alleging in a civil suit that his employer engaged in visa fraud and then tried to cover it up shared some details about the Indian outsourcing firm�s response to the suit so far.
The lawsuit was filed in February in Circuit Court in Alabama and has sparked a high-stakes criminal probe of Infosys by U.S. federal investigators.
Infosys doesn�t want a jury trial in the civil case and is pressing for arbitration, a mechanism in the U.S. system whereby a neutral third party resolves a dispute, according to Kenny Mendelsohn, a lawyer for Mr. Palmer. A federal judge will decide that matter.
Mr. Mendelsohn, who emailed India Real Time a status update on the case, suggested that Mr. Palmer�s work laptop�which he says contains documents that would substantiate the claim of visa violations�has become a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
He says Infosys tried to get the laptop back after Mr. Palmer started cooperating several months ago with U.S. authorities, who took interest in the case.
�When Infosys learned that Mr. Palmer was cooperating with the Investigators, it demanded that he turn the laptop over to Infosys and threatened to fire him if he did not,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote in the email. �However, Mr. Palmer on my advice opted to secure the laptop and the Investigators now have it.�
Infosys said it was only following the law in seeking access to the computer after Mr. Mendelsohn filed his suit.
�The notion that in this instance we have attempted to do anything inappropriate with respect to a company issued computer maintained by an employee is simply not accurate. In any context in which the company is involved in litigation or is otherwise required to preserve documents and electronic records, the law requires us to both secure and maintain copies of those records,� said the firm in an emailed statement. �That is precisely the practice that any company would follow in this situation and it is precisely what we have attempted to do here.�
Infosys did not comment on the question of seeking arbitration or on Mr. Palmer�s present work status with the company.
Mr. Palmer still works at Infosys but is �on the bench,� which means he is drawing a salary but isn�t staffed on any projects and is sitting at home, according to his lawyer.
�He is not doing any work, but has continually contacted Infosys requesting another assignment,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote. �Even though Mr. Palmer has received information that there are numerous positions available that could use him, Infosys still has not sent him to another assignment.�
Fixing Congress (http://bostonreview.net/BR36.3/ndf_jim_cooper_fixing_congress.php) By Jim Cooper | Boston Review
Coaching and Much More for Chinese Students Looking to U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/global/30college.html) By DAN LEVIN | The New York Times
Is multiculturalism in Europe dead? (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-245422-is-multiculturalism-in-europe-dead.html) By Amanda Paul | Sunday's Zaman
A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
Trust but E-Verify (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30douthat.html) By ROSS DOUTHAT | The New York Times
Justices� Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28immigration.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
How the Other Half Lives, Still (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri3.html) The New York Times Editorial
High court lets Arizona usurp federal role on immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/high-court-lets-arizona-usurp-federal-role-on-immigration/2011/05/26/AGqXlyCH_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Immigrant-Law Ruling Irks Some Businesses (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576349834244083052.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN And DANNY YADRON | Wall Street Journal
The lawyer for the U.S. employee of Infosys Technologies Ltd. who is alleging in a civil suit that his employer engaged in visa fraud and then tried to cover it up shared some details about the Indian outsourcing firm�s response to the suit so far.
The lawsuit was filed in February in Circuit Court in Alabama and has sparked a high-stakes criminal probe of Infosys by U.S. federal investigators.
Infosys doesn�t want a jury trial in the civil case and is pressing for arbitration, a mechanism in the U.S. system whereby a neutral third party resolves a dispute, according to Kenny Mendelsohn, a lawyer for Mr. Palmer. A federal judge will decide that matter.
Mr. Mendelsohn, who emailed India Real Time a status update on the case, suggested that Mr. Palmer�s work laptop�which he says contains documents that would substantiate the claim of visa violations�has become a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
He says Infosys tried to get the laptop back after Mr. Palmer started cooperating several months ago with U.S. authorities, who took interest in the case.
�When Infosys learned that Mr. Palmer was cooperating with the Investigators, it demanded that he turn the laptop over to Infosys and threatened to fire him if he did not,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote in the email. �However, Mr. Palmer on my advice opted to secure the laptop and the Investigators now have it.�
Infosys said it was only following the law in seeking access to the computer after Mr. Mendelsohn filed his suit.
�The notion that in this instance we have attempted to do anything inappropriate with respect to a company issued computer maintained by an employee is simply not accurate. In any context in which the company is involved in litigation or is otherwise required to preserve documents and electronic records, the law requires us to both secure and maintain copies of those records,� said the firm in an emailed statement. �That is precisely the practice that any company would follow in this situation and it is precisely what we have attempted to do here.�
Infosys did not comment on the question of seeking arbitration or on Mr. Palmer�s present work status with the company.
Mr. Palmer still works at Infosys but is �on the bench,� which means he is drawing a salary but isn�t staffed on any projects and is sitting at home, according to his lawyer.
�He is not doing any work, but has continually contacted Infosys requesting another assignment,� Mr. Mendelsohn wrote. �Even though Mr. Palmer has received information that there are numerous positions available that could use him, Infosys still has not sent him to another assignment.�
Fixing Congress (http://bostonreview.net/BR36.3/ndf_jim_cooper_fixing_congress.php) By Jim Cooper | Boston Review
Coaching and Much More for Chinese Students Looking to U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/business/global/30college.html) By DAN LEVIN | The New York Times
Is multiculturalism in Europe dead? (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-245422-is-multiculturalism-in-europe-dead.html) By Amanda Paul | Sunday's Zaman
A Crackdown on Employing Illegal Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
Trust but E-Verify (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30douthat.html) By ROSS DOUTHAT | The New York Times
Justices� Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28immigration.html) By JULIA PRESTON | The New York Times
How the Other Half Lives, Still (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri3.html) The New York Times Editorial
High court lets Arizona usurp federal role on immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/high-court-lets-arizona-usurp-federal-role-on-immigration/2011/05/26/AGqXlyCH_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Immigrant-Law Ruling Irks Some Businesses (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576349834244083052.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN And DANNY YADRON | Wall Street Journal
I agree with you .
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
I disagree ... all the reports say that prices will fall down for atleast a year. house is good if you need extra space and if you get it at a correct price (atleast once it stops falling) ..I agree that timing is difficult ..but in this economy it makes sense to rent when you are on temporary status.
btw ..Renting gives you flexibility and you end up with more money in the bank !! but if you have a GC (or very close to getting it) and you get a house in bargain (or at the correct price) / and you need the space plus u intend to stay there for long long time ..then yes, buying makes sense.
but as an example ..my friend in california, who few months ago was saying that california is the best, smart people etc etc is now saying that he is giving the advice to everyone to stay away from cali ..he unfortunately is stuck because he has a house there. (major layoffs in his company is giving him stress and sleepless nights).
similarly..you need to be very cautious to buy within your means ...another friend in atlanta (businessman) bought a 1million home for 800K ..he kept on beating his own drum that he is smart and others are fools ..now his house is in foreclosure and he lost around 200K ..so u can end up with nothing when you buy a house too.
-----------
Renting is not throwing money away..why ? for one - you get a place to stay, flexibility, maintenance / property tax paid by property owner, you can rent closer to your work and move around as per needs etc etc.. housing has its own benefits (but renting has its own too .."it is not as easy as saying renting is throwing money away" ..I have been asked to write about this in detail in the IV wiki ..will post a link here later
I am not asking anyone to buy or rent .. its a personal decision but if you believe that one year down the line you will get a more cheaper house and the interest rates would still be at 5 % you should think twice .
House is not an investment but a side effect of home ownership is that you will end up with a property but if you continue to rent you are sure to end up with nothing .
I disagree ... all the reports say that prices will fall down for atleast a year. house is good if you need extra space and if you get it at a correct price (atleast once it stops falling) ..I agree that timing is difficult ..but in this economy it makes sense to rent when you are on temporary status.
btw ..Renting gives you flexibility and you end up with more money in the bank !! but if you have a GC (or very close to getting it) and you get a house in bargain (or at the correct price) / and you need the space plus u intend to stay there for long long time ..then yes, buying makes sense.
but as an example ..my friend in california, who few months ago was saying that california is the best, smart people etc etc is now saying that he is giving the advice to everyone to stay away from cali ..he unfortunately is stuck because he has a house there. (major layoffs in his company is giving him stress and sleepless nights).
similarly..you need to be very cautious to buy within your means ...another friend in atlanta (businessman) bought a 1million home for 800K ..he kept on beating his own drum that he is smart and others are fools ..now his house is in foreclosure and he lost around 200K ..so u can end up with nothing when you buy a house too.
-----------
Renting is not throwing money away..why ? for one - you get a place to stay, flexibility, maintenance / property tax paid by property owner, you can rent closer to your work and move around as per needs etc etc.. housing has its own benefits (but renting has its own too .."it is not as easy as saying renting is throwing money away" ..I have been asked to write about this in detail in the IV wiki ..will post a link here later
2010 Sketch Smokey Eyes Make-Up
retrogression is there was no unified voice to atleast speak out, when the serious problems that the legal immigrants are facing was anticipated, write about these issues. Now we have one in IV.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
Some paras from New Math on Hill, Scramble on K Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201579.html) -- The House's pledge of fiscal restraint could threaten tax breaks across many industries. Businesses and the lobbyists who represent them are on high alert.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
hair Smokey Eyes
These banks, Mortgage companies and realtors - The whole nexus of sharks have made refinance almost impossible since last week.. Any body else noticed that? What happened is as soon as FED cut down the rate this nexus dramatically reduces the price 10 - 15%. If you go to zillow, you would find at least 10% reduction published for almost every home with comparison to 5 days before... Something is cooking up.. I do not know what it may be...At least for VA, MD, DC based homes I see this pattern. It looks like, lenders do not want to invite refinances.. and that is scary. Even most sites shows the list of properties with less value under " property sold last in 6 months" and make the properties disappeared which wer sold with reasonable price. I noticed this pattern for many bank alerts as well. So now the real picture you can get from is the county database only to fight these sharks. Are they trying to divert all to government loans (FHA?)... watch out.
It would be the most foolish thing to do to pay cash for your home, no matter how small your starter home is. If you make let's say 20% down, then you leverage is 80%, and so you are building equity on 100% of your home by only putting down 20%. The interest you pay on it now is 5%. What other investment can you leverage 1:4, get tax deductions on your interest, AND build equity?
You may argue that margin buying is the same. But is that's not tax deductible!
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
You may argue that margin buying is the same. But is that's not tax deductible!
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
hot How to Get Smokey Eye Makeup
Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28thu2.html?ref=opinion) NYT Editorial, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
house smoldering smokey eyes.
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
tattoo smokey eyes make up.
Can one understand that an automatic increase of 20% per year can cause hardship to citizens caught in a future and unexpected recession ? That's all I am saying.
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Communique
This is what I can tell you. Couple of my friends choose to go to China for job opportunitieis because that is where manufacturing base of USA is. For opportunities, Americans go to places like Dubai and Russia which are growth markets. In a global economy, job migration is common. It happens both ways - into USA and out of USA.
Lou Dobbs rants about protecting American jobs all the time. Where was he when this was happening from 1980's when blue collar jobs were being shifted to China? USA lost more jobs in manufacturing than in IT outsourcing. His rants bring a sense of insecurity among American viewers, nothing else. The truth is Americans are most resourceful. When faced with a challenge, they find something within themselves, do something and earn a living for themselves. Current number of IT jobs in USA exceeds the number of jobs available during the peak of dotcom era. So infact the IT sector in USA expanded considerably from the dotcom time. Would not you expect a shortage of workers now, given low admission levels of US students in Technology fields? This shortage is part of the reason for expansion of outsourcing. And US universities fill their seats with bright foreign students, but there are not enough VISA numbers to keep these students here. Also USA population is aging rapidly. Part of the reason for nurses in high demand is this. More nurses needed to take care of patients, but not enough people in the profession.
Congress cut down the VISA numbers after the dotcom bust to 65,000 from the height of 195,000.
As for the salary stagnation, outsourcing is definitely one of the reasons. Big companies outsource their work to a cheaper place, and because of their presence in that country, offset offshoring costs against local revenue in that place, there by reduce the tax exposure in USA. This is a double advantage for them. Hence more inclination for outsourcing.
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Communique
This is what I can tell you. Couple of my friends choose to go to China for job opportunitieis because that is where manufacturing base of USA is. For opportunities, Americans go to places like Dubai and Russia which are growth markets. In a global economy, job migration is common. It happens both ways - into USA and out of USA.
Lou Dobbs rants about protecting American jobs all the time. Where was he when this was happening from 1980's when blue collar jobs were being shifted to China? USA lost more jobs in manufacturing than in IT outsourcing. His rants bring a sense of insecurity among American viewers, nothing else. The truth is Americans are most resourceful. When faced with a challenge, they find something within themselves, do something and earn a living for themselves. Current number of IT jobs in USA exceeds the number of jobs available during the peak of dotcom era. So infact the IT sector in USA expanded considerably from the dotcom time. Would not you expect a shortage of workers now, given low admission levels of US students in Technology fields? This shortage is part of the reason for expansion of outsourcing. And US universities fill their seats with bright foreign students, but there are not enough VISA numbers to keep these students here. Also USA population is aging rapidly. Part of the reason for nurses in high demand is this. More nurses needed to take care of patients, but not enough people in the profession.
Congress cut down the VISA numbers after the dotcom bust to 65,000 from the height of 195,000.
As for the salary stagnation, outsourcing is definitely one of the reasons. Big companies outsource their work to a cheaper place, and because of their presence in that country, offset offshoring costs against local revenue in that place, there by reduce the tax exposure in USA. This is a double advantage for them. Hence more inclination for outsourcing.
pictures Smoky Eye Makeup
Eliminating concurrent filing of I-140 & I-485 could provide some short term relief for backlogged categories. But again, this would impact new filers in getting their EAD. Any short term solution isn't going to help all EB3 and EB2 folks. The bottom line is that we have limited number of visas and the demand is always greater than the supply. This issue isn't going go away. We will continue to be in this dog eat dog situation until supply is increased (Backlogged Countries Vs ROW, Legal vs Illegal Immigration & now EB2 vs EB3). Please continue to push for Lofgren bills which could get us out of this mess.
dresses I have been into makeup a lot
Oppression born of fear
There is fear at the heart of the Chinese and Russian systems. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8229075/Oppression-born-of-fear.html)
Daily Telegraph Editorial
An over-mighty state crushes those whom it deems its opponents. Yet in doing so it exposes its weakness. Take the cases of Liu Xiaobo, who yesterday marked his 55th birthday in prison in China, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, currently on trial in Russia. The reaction of the Chinese government earlier in the year to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Liu was hysterical. Because the dissident and his family were not permitted to attend the ceremony, the prize was placed on an empty chair, a potent symbol of the oppressive nature of the Communist Party; in short, a diplomatic disaster.
The relentless pursuit of Mr Khodorkovsky has likewise further tarnished Russia's image. The former head of the oil company Yukos is likely to be sentenced to a six-year term this week for embezzlement and money-laundering, shortly before he completes an earlier, eight-year sentence for tax evasion. The charge that he stole �16.3 billion of oil revenues between 1998 and 2003 is absurd. And the political nature of the case has been made crystal clear by Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, who said earlier this month that "a thief must sit in jail". Mr Khodorkovsky's cardinal sin, in Mr Putin's eyes, is to have provided funding to opposition parties. His second sentence will mean he will be out of the way well beyond the presidential election scheduled for March 2012.
These two men are being hounded because they challenge the status quo, which in China is the political monopoly of the Communist Party, and in Russia, bureaucratic cronyism. In both countries, those who have grown rich and powerful under such conditions want to keep things as they are. Yet the very intensity of the persecution reveals a fear at the heart of each system that its authority is more fragile than it might appear. Does the emperor have any clothes?
Ivory Coast election crisis: A roadmap for African political reform (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2010/1230/Ivory-Coast-election-crisis-A-roadmap-for-African-political-reform) By Frazer & Berggruen | CSM
There is fear at the heart of the Chinese and Russian systems. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8229075/Oppression-born-of-fear.html)
Daily Telegraph Editorial
An over-mighty state crushes those whom it deems its opponents. Yet in doing so it exposes its weakness. Take the cases of Liu Xiaobo, who yesterday marked his 55th birthday in prison in China, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, currently on trial in Russia. The reaction of the Chinese government earlier in the year to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Liu was hysterical. Because the dissident and his family were not permitted to attend the ceremony, the prize was placed on an empty chair, a potent symbol of the oppressive nature of the Communist Party; in short, a diplomatic disaster.
The relentless pursuit of Mr Khodorkovsky has likewise further tarnished Russia's image. The former head of the oil company Yukos is likely to be sentenced to a six-year term this week for embezzlement and money-laundering, shortly before he completes an earlier, eight-year sentence for tax evasion. The charge that he stole �16.3 billion of oil revenues between 1998 and 2003 is absurd. And the political nature of the case has been made crystal clear by Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, who said earlier this month that "a thief must sit in jail". Mr Khodorkovsky's cardinal sin, in Mr Putin's eyes, is to have provided funding to opposition parties. His second sentence will mean he will be out of the way well beyond the presidential election scheduled for March 2012.
These two men are being hounded because they challenge the status quo, which in China is the political monopoly of the Communist Party, and in Russia, bureaucratic cronyism. In both countries, those who have grown rich and powerful under such conditions want to keep things as they are. Yet the very intensity of the persecution reveals a fear at the heart of each system that its authority is more fragile than it might appear. Does the emperor have any clothes?
Ivory Coast election crisis: A roadmap for African political reform (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2010/1230/Ivory-Coast-election-crisis-A-roadmap-for-African-political-reform) By Frazer & Berggruen | CSM
makeup 2011 Smoky eyes makeup how to
Especially considering Sen. Cornyn seems to be opposed to some of the provisions being discussed for the illegal immigrants.
girlfriend Smokey Eyes Makeup
Tougher Rules Change Game for Lobbyists (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK New York Times, August 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 � H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.
The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new �temptation rules.� Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.
And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker�s staff.
�You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,� Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. �These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, each other�young people with active social lives.�
The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street. It comes amid signs that federal prosecutors are taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases � including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes.
By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists� campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements � in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills � make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists� influence.
�It will be easier to connect dots,� said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. �Even if there shouldn�t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.�
Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. �It should send shivers down lobbyists� spines,� Mr. Brand said. �It is a minefield now.�
These are hardly the first restrictions, of course. Internal rules already barred lawmakers or senior staff members from accepting a gift or a meal worth more than $50 from a lobbyist. But the rules were rarely, if ever, enforced and did not govern lobbyists.
President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners.
Lobbying firms are racing to train employees in the new rules. One firm, fearful that prosecutors might try to use the expanded disclosures to link official actions to campaign contributions, has sent letters to its clients advising them how to respond if a lawmaker brings up fund-raising in a conversation about policy or procurements. �We would love to have this conversation, but it would have to be at another time� is the short answer.
One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions.
Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of �only nominal value.� The House ethics committee guidelines suggest �light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,� a standard that is known as �the toothpick test.�
The firm also advised a client distributing flashlights on Capitol Hill � to promote government openness � to make sure not only that they cost less than $10 each but also that they looked cheap, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And the �staff briefing� � in which a lobbyist enticed Congressional staff members to hear a talk about some dry legislative concern by offering pizza � has become extinct. No one will come without the free food.
Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.
�All those people who grew up in the system � who aren�t evil-doers, just good people � used to be able to entertain and have fun,� lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.
Jan Baran, a longtime Republican lawyer whose clients include lobbyists, said: �There is a great deal of resentment. It�s �the devil made me do it,� and the devil this time happens to be lobbyists. They get tarred with corruption, and the next day they get mail from all the same lawmakers who are blaming lobbyists saying, �I have a fund-raiser next week � don�t forget to contribute!� �
Many lobbyists say the rules pose dilemmas. Blocking them from buying dinners or trips for lawmakers, lobbyists say, will only force them to spend more time and money at political fund-raisers to get the same access.
For lawmakers, one of the most contentious elements of the package is the requirement that candidates disclose the names of federally registered lobbyists who solicit and �bundle� contributions. But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.
�That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,� Lawrence O�Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. �It could be perceived as bragging rights.�
Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors� new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.
For lobbyists � who live at the nexus of contributions and favors � it is an alarming trend. �They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,� one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.
Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, �It is a lose-lose situation,� said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.
A self-described �earmarks guy� who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.
�It is a road map that says, �Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,� � he said.
Some loopholes exist. At the annual Aerospace Industries Association trade show in Paris last month, for example, military contractors treated a gaggle of senators to luxurious receptions at galleries, parks and hotels � all permitted under an exception for �widely attended events.�
But John W. Douglass, the group�s president, said the new rules were putting a damper on such events. �Who wants to go to a hot, crowded cocktail party,� Mr. Douglass said, �and have to worry every time the guy brings the hors d�oeuvres tray up, �Should I do this or not?� �
Still, some lobbyists and lawyers wondered privately how long the new carefulness would last.
At the Capital Grille the evening after final passage of the new lobbying bill, private wine lockers by the door still bore the names of several prominent lobbyists. Two mounted stag heads were the only sentries policing the dimly lit bar. Shaking a Belvedere Vodka martini for a lone defense contractor, a bartender leaned in to offer his thoughts.
�What happens at the Capital Grille,� the bartender said, �stays at the Capital Grille.�
Fundraisers Tap Those Who Can't Say No (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601403.html) 'Bundlers' Look to Associates, Employees for Campaign Cash By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
Draining the 'Swamp' Is Not So Easy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601298.html) Skeptics Question Bite of Ethics Rules By Elizabeth Williamson Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 � H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.
The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new �temptation rules.� Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.
And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker�s staff.
�You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,� Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. �These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, each other�young people with active social lives.�
The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street. It comes amid signs that federal prosecutors are taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases � including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes.
By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists� campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements � in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills � make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists� influence.
�It will be easier to connect dots,� said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. �Even if there shouldn�t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.�
Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. �It should send shivers down lobbyists� spines,� Mr. Brand said. �It is a minefield now.�
These are hardly the first restrictions, of course. Internal rules already barred lawmakers or senior staff members from accepting a gift or a meal worth more than $50 from a lobbyist. But the rules were rarely, if ever, enforced and did not govern lobbyists.
President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners.
Lobbying firms are racing to train employees in the new rules. One firm, fearful that prosecutors might try to use the expanded disclosures to link official actions to campaign contributions, has sent letters to its clients advising them how to respond if a lawmaker brings up fund-raising in a conversation about policy or procurements. �We would love to have this conversation, but it would have to be at another time� is the short answer.
One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions.
Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of �only nominal value.� The House ethics committee guidelines suggest �light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,� a standard that is known as �the toothpick test.�
The firm also advised a client distributing flashlights on Capitol Hill � to promote government openness � to make sure not only that they cost less than $10 each but also that they looked cheap, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And the �staff briefing� � in which a lobbyist enticed Congressional staff members to hear a talk about some dry legislative concern by offering pizza � has become extinct. No one will come without the free food.
Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.
�All those people who grew up in the system � who aren�t evil-doers, just good people � used to be able to entertain and have fun,� lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.
Jan Baran, a longtime Republican lawyer whose clients include lobbyists, said: �There is a great deal of resentment. It�s �the devil made me do it,� and the devil this time happens to be lobbyists. They get tarred with corruption, and the next day they get mail from all the same lawmakers who are blaming lobbyists saying, �I have a fund-raiser next week � don�t forget to contribute!� �
Many lobbyists say the rules pose dilemmas. Blocking them from buying dinners or trips for lawmakers, lobbyists say, will only force them to spend more time and money at political fund-raisers to get the same access.
For lawmakers, one of the most contentious elements of the package is the requirement that candidates disclose the names of federally registered lobbyists who solicit and �bundle� contributions. But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.
�That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,� Lawrence O�Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. �It could be perceived as bragging rights.�
Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors� new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.
For lobbyists � who live at the nexus of contributions and favors � it is an alarming trend. �They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,� one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.
Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, �It is a lose-lose situation,� said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.
A self-described �earmarks guy� who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.
�It is a road map that says, �Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,� � he said.
Some loopholes exist. At the annual Aerospace Industries Association trade show in Paris last month, for example, military contractors treated a gaggle of senators to luxurious receptions at galleries, parks and hotels � all permitted under an exception for �widely attended events.�
But John W. Douglass, the group�s president, said the new rules were putting a damper on such events. �Who wants to go to a hot, crowded cocktail party,� Mr. Douglass said, �and have to worry every time the guy brings the hors d�oeuvres tray up, �Should I do this or not?� �
Still, some lobbyists and lawyers wondered privately how long the new carefulness would last.
At the Capital Grille the evening after final passage of the new lobbying bill, private wine lockers by the door still bore the names of several prominent lobbyists. Two mounted stag heads were the only sentries policing the dimly lit bar. Shaking a Belvedere Vodka martini for a lone defense contractor, a bartender leaned in to offer his thoughts.
�What happens at the Capital Grille,� the bartender said, �stays at the Capital Grille.�
Fundraisers Tap Those Who Can't Say No (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601403.html) 'Bundlers' Look to Associates, Employees for Campaign Cash By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
Draining the 'Swamp' Is Not So Easy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601298.html) Skeptics Question Bite of Ethics Rules By Elizabeth Williamson Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
hairstyles sultry smoky eye makeup.
There is a difference between displacing an American and hiring the best talent - if I have a job opening, I interview 10 candidates and I want to select the best.
Given the current bill, I have to wait for months to hire this candidate if this candidate happens to lack GC/citizenship. This affects my business and group productivity. Every time I wait for months to get a candidate, it affects my business.
So, what this bill is trying to imply - "hey, do not bother hiring the best talent - why don't you hire Joe, a GC holder, he can do the job fairly well even though he is not as bright as Mary, the person you really want to hire"
I feel a sense of disrespect in your voice for folks who do not have higher education (e.g., MS/PhD) - I have a M.S. but I know of a bunch of folks who are much brighter than me and have a bachelors degree. Infact, if I am not mistaken, Bill Gates still does not have a degree, so in your eyes, is he not useful/accomplished?
Given the current bill, I have to wait for months to hire this candidate if this candidate happens to lack GC/citizenship. This affects my business and group productivity. Every time I wait for months to get a candidate, it affects my business.
So, what this bill is trying to imply - "hey, do not bother hiring the best talent - why don't you hire Joe, a GC holder, he can do the job fairly well even though he is not as bright as Mary, the person you really want to hire"
I feel a sense of disrespect in your voice for folks who do not have higher education (e.g., MS/PhD) - I have a M.S. but I know of a bunch of folks who are much brighter than me and have a bachelors degree. Infact, if I am not mistaken, Bill Gates still does not have a degree, so in your eyes, is he not useful/accomplished?
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
I noticed that the $8k and $10k for California (which began in March 09) stimulus is taken by builders for their benefit. How did they do it?
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
Exactly, The realtors and the banks are too the beneficiaries for the 8k, not the buyers.
So don't buy the house for the sake of 8k. and Don't buy the home as an investment!
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
Exactly, The realtors and the banks are too the beneficiaries for the 8k, not the buyers.
So don't buy the house for the sake of 8k. and Don't buy the home as an investment!
