This is your justification for renting? Your 1300 goes to that owners mortgage. You are paying so that he can own the property you live in. I would not be surprised if he has multiple condos renting to others like you.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
wallpaper When building your schedule,
I agree. I was not talking of the USCIS point of view, but our point of view (reflecting on the last line of the original post) :)
Regardless of the power shift in Congress, the cheap foreign labor lobby is coming on strong, pushing for legislation that would dramatically increase the number of foreign workers allowed into this country under existing guest worker programs.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive.
His solution? Bringing in more foreign workers.
Critics say he's got it wrong.
STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: If we have a shortage, then the solution is to let the labor market be tight and more Americans will be attracted to those jobs as wages rise. If American business really feels that we're not teaching enough math and science in school, they need to pressure the political institutions to do a better job of teaching our kids.
TUCKER: Congress has a different solution. It's known as the Skill Act of 2006. It would nearly double the current cap on H1B visas and allow for a 20 percent increase every year after the previous year's quota was met, virtually guaranteeing an endless supply of lower-paid workers from overseas.
A study by Georgetown University found that the total potential number of new tech visas created by the Senate bill would by 1.88 million over the next decade. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics only projects a need for 1.25 million workers in computing and engineering fields. That's more visas than jobs.
Worker advocates say Congress is ready to sole a problem that doesn't exist.
KIM BERRY, PROGRAMMERS GUILD: We don't see any evidence of a shortage. A shortage under the laws of supply and demand would be an increase in wages, it would be body shops or headhunters stealing employees from other companies.
TUCKER: And that's not happening.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: No. In fact, wages are stagnant and declining. A study published by "BusinessWeek," in fact, found that the starting wages for computer scientists and engineers fell 12 percent or worse, Lou, from 2001 to 2005. It doesn't sound like a tight labor market to me.
DOBBS: No, it's just going in the opposite direction.
You know, at some point these people have got to be a little embarrassed by their shoddy economics and their lack of, let's say, integrity and intellectual honesty in what they are doing here. And perhaps at some point find a conscious in corporate America about what they are doing to working men and women in this country. You would think it would happen -- we hope sooner rather than later.
Thank you, Bill Tucker.
Wass up between these dudes? Lou and Kim? Are they buddies or more? :) .. damn.. He gets him on to his show so often as if Kim B is a prominent person. Why the hell doesnt he let America hear the other side of the story?? I mean not in this article.. in general.
2011 But there is a work-around.
Just curious if this is being endorsed by IV?
Menu
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
Pelosi's first year
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
Again I beg to differ. Britishers gave land to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Why should only Israel be responsible? Where will they go? Why not Egypt and Jordan? Secondly, I have children and I am also terrified by the pictures of brutal massacre but think about this. If those who want to kill my children is hiding among women and children what choices do I have? be "civil" and let them kill our children or attack and kill them?
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
2010 This template helps keep track
I am not convinced with the whole systematic preadjudication logic at all. I think it has to do with the mistakenly released memo by USCIS and the criteria which is listed in it. Companies meeting the criteria listed in that memo's H1s/I140s are being looked at and I485 app in the same file. There is no trend in the posts on this site by people who received RFEs to suggest systematic preadjudication, they are all over the place. EB2, EB3 - priority date-years ranging from 2001 to 2006, received RFEs.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
It is very sad but please post it on the relevant site.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
hair hairstyles work schedule
I definitely agree with the post above :). ..here is another article ..not the best bit vague but still good ..it came in just now on cnbc
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
note the line marked in red ..it still depends on economy ...but predictions are that US economy may stagnate plus tight immi ..and you can see what will happen in future
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31151346
--------------------
Home prices in the United States have been falling for nearly three years, and the decline may well continue for some time.
AP
Even the federal government has projected price decreases through 2010. As a baseline, the stress tests recently performed on big banks included a total fall in housing prices of 41 percent from 2006 through 2010. Their “more adverse” forecast projected a drop of 48 percent — suggesting that important housing ratios, like price to rent, and price to construction cost — would fall to their lowest levels in 20 years.
Such long, steady housing price declines seem to defy both common sense and the traditional laws of economics, which assume that people act rationally and that markets are efficient. Why would a sensible person watch the value of his home fall for years, only to sell for a big loss? Why not sell early in the cycle? If people acted as the efficient-market theory says they should, prices would come down right away, not gradually over years, and these cycles would be much shorter.
But something is definitely different about real estate. Long declines do happen with some regularity. And despite the uptick last week in pending home sales and recent improvement in consumer confidence, we still appear to be in a continuing price decline.
There are many historical examples. After the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1991, land prices in Japan’s major cities fell every single year for 15 consecutive years.
Why does this happen? One could easily believe that people are a little slower to sell their homes than, say, their stocks. But years slower?
Several factors can explain the snail-like behavior of the real estate market. An important one is that sales of existing homes are mainly by people who are planning to buy other homes. So even if sellers think that home prices are in decline, most have no reason to hurry because they are not really leaving the market.
Furthermore, few homeowners consider exiting the housing market for purely speculative reasons. First, many owners don’t have a speculator’s sense of urgency. And they don’t like shifting from being owners to renters, a process entailing lifestyle changes that can take years to effect.
Among couples sharing a house, for example, any decision to sell and switch to a rental requires the assent of both partners. Even growing children, who may resent being shifted to another school district and placed in a rental apartment, are likely to have some veto power.
In fact, most decisions to exit the market in favor of renting are not market-timing moves. Instead, they reflect the growing pressures of economic necessity. This may involve foreclosure or just difficulty paying bills, or gradual changes in opinion about how to live in an economic downturn.
This dynamic helps to explain why, at a time of high unemployment, declines in home prices may be long-lasting and predictable.
Imagine a young couple now renting an apartment. A few years ago, they were toying with the idea of buying a house, but seeing unemployment all around them and the turmoil in the housing market, they have changed their thinking: they have decided to remain renters. They may not revisit that decision for some years. It is settled in their minds for now.
On the other hand, an elderly couple who during the boom were holding out against selling their home and moving to a continuing-care retirement community have decided that it’s finally the time to do so. It may take them a year or two to sort through a lifetime of belongings and prepare for the move, but they may never revisit their decision again.
As a result, we will have a seller and no buyer, and there will be that much less demand relative to supply — and one more reason that prices may continue to fall, or stagnate, in 2010 or 2011.
All of these people could be made to change their plans if a sharp improvement in the economy got their attention. The young couple could change their minds and decide to buy next year, and the elderly couple could decide to further postpone their selling. That would leave us with a buyer and no seller, providing an upward kick to the market price.
For this reason, not all economists agree that home price declines are really predictable. Ray Fair, my colleague at Yale, for one, warns that any trend up or down may suddenly be reversed if there is an economic “regime change” — a shift big enough to make people change their thinking.
But market changes that big don’t occur every day. And when they do, there is a coordination problem: people won’t all change their views about homeownership at once. Some will focus on recent price declines, which may seem to belie any improvement in the economy, reinforcing negative attitudes about the housing market.
Even if there is a quick end to the recession, the housing market’s poor performance may linger. After the last home price boom, which ended about the time of the 1990-91 recession, home prices did not start moving upward, even incrementally, until 1997.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
hot Daily Schedule Template
If the Strive act passes then a large part of the H1B visa demand from US STEM will be out of the que, because these people will not need a H1B Visa. The proposed restrictions on H1B will put the body shoppers out of business where people are hired, put on the bench if there are no contracts, and if they do have a job, then the company will collect a hefty cut off the work of the H1B worker. If this part of the H1B numbers are out, then companies which genuinely hire hi-tech workers such as foreign qualified Engineers, Scientists, technicians etc. These people will then not have to compete for visa numbers with these Desi companies who might just bring in web developers to hire out on contracts at various sites accross the US. Currently, as things stand, a smart lawyer can get an H1B petition written up even to collect garbage or to pump gas at a gas station. No one can dispute that all this goes on. The restrictions should be in place only for new H1B employees not existing ones to minimize the effect on businesses and these employees too.
house 2010 weekly planner plan week
I think the universities are out of control and need to be fixed too. All these people with MS and PHd's enroll in their courses with the full intention of staying on after completing their courses.
We should ask that the DOS start randomly denying F1 applications based on a ratio that is calculated by reviewing immigrant applications for the past 5 years.
We should ask that the DOS start randomly denying F1 applications based on a ratio that is calculated by reviewing immigrant applications for the past 5 years.
tattoo Weekly Chore Schedule – Free
Lobbying Expands in a Lean Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html)
Election years are often fallow for lobbyists, because the interests that employ them tend to take a wait-and-see approach. Yet total spending on federal lobbying last year managed to zoom up to $2.6 billion, a nearly 11 percent increase from $2.4 billion in 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
The biggest-spending sector was finance, insurance and real estate, with $353.9 million, followed by health, with $337.7 million, new data from the Center for Responsive Politics show. Organized-labor lobbying was near the bottom, with $29 million in federal expenditures last year.
Spending by registered lobbyists has risen steadily year over year. And lobbyists expect another bumper season this year in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress. Change breeds uncertainty, they say, and uncertainty inevitably brings extra lobbying fees.
Election years are often fallow for lobbyists, because the interests that employ them tend to take a wait-and-see approach. Yet total spending on federal lobbying last year managed to zoom up to $2.6 billion, a nearly 11 percent increase from $2.4 billion in 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
The biggest-spending sector was finance, insurance and real estate, with $353.9 million, followed by health, with $337.7 million, new data from the Center for Responsive Politics show. Organized-labor lobbying was near the bottom, with $29 million in federal expenditures last year.
Spending by registered lobbyists has risen steadily year over year. And lobbyists expect another bumper season this year in the wake of the Democratic takeover of Congress. Change breeds uncertainty, they say, and uncertainty inevitably brings extra lobbying fees.
pictures Work Schedule Template With
Hi,
In addition to what everyone else has recommended please contact Zoe Lofgren and seek help from Prakash the ombudsman and a personal meeting with Director Gonzales.
All the best!
VS
In addition to what everyone else has recommended please contact Zoe Lofgren and seek help from Prakash the ombudsman and a personal meeting with Director Gonzales.
All the best!
VS
dresses daily/weekly work hours,
Pappu,
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
makeup work schedule template
A pair of gloves
A young man wanted to purchase a gift for his new sweetie for Valentine's Day. As they had not been very long, it was very difficult decision. After careful consideration he decided a good gift would be a pair of gloves. Accompanied by his sister, he went to the store and bought the gloves. His sister purchased a pair of panties at the same time.
The clerk carefully wrapped both items but in the process got them mixed up. The sister was handed the gloves and the young man got the panties.
The young man mailed his Valentine's Day gift with the following note:
"This special Valentines Day gift was chosen because I noticed you are in the habit of not wearing any when we go out in the evenings.
These are a lovely shade, the lady I bought them from showed me the pair she had been wearing for the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and they looked quite lovely.
I wish I was there to put them on you for the first time; no doubt, other hands will come into contact with them before I have a chance to see you again.
Just think how many times I'll be kissing them in the future. I hope you'll wear them Friday night for me.
Love, Cuddle Bear
p.s. The sales lady says the latest style is to wear them folded down with just a little fur showing."
A young man wanted to purchase a gift for his new sweetie for Valentine's Day. As they had not been very long, it was very difficult decision. After careful consideration he decided a good gift would be a pair of gloves. Accompanied by his sister, he went to the store and bought the gloves. His sister purchased a pair of panties at the same time.
The clerk carefully wrapped both items but in the process got them mixed up. The sister was handed the gloves and the young man got the panties.
The young man mailed his Valentine's Day gift with the following note:
"This special Valentines Day gift was chosen because I noticed you are in the habit of not wearing any when we go out in the evenings.
These are a lovely shade, the lady I bought them from showed me the pair she had been wearing for the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and they looked quite lovely.
I wish I was there to put them on you for the first time; no doubt, other hands will come into contact with them before I have a chance to see you again.
Just think how many times I'll be kissing them in the future. I hope you'll wear them Friday night for me.
Love, Cuddle Bear
p.s. The sales lady says the latest style is to wear them folded down with just a little fur showing."
girlfriend lank work schedule template.
Good post,
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Though I sense your intent, I am too feeble to carry the burden even a fraction of the weight of your point. And I am not even trying to be modest here. Though there is a quite a bit of work to be done for moderate muslims to come forward and lead the way, Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Though I sense your intent, I am too feeble to carry the burden even a fraction of the weight of your point. And I am not even trying to be modest here. Though there is a quite a bit of work to be done for moderate muslims to come forward and lead the way, Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
hairstyles Editing a template is similar
Hi Unitednations,
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
When House Changed Rules for Travel, He Lobbied for the Lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201293_2.html)
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A19
Loopholes in laws and regulations sometimes seem to appear by magic, and often no one wants to claim to be the magician. But one man actually wants credit for a couple of big loopholes in the new ethics rules the House passed last month: John H. Graham IV.
Graham is the president of an organization that could exist only in Washington -- the American Society of Association Executives. In other words, he is the chief lobbyist for lobbyists.
His organization represents 22,000 association executives, from large groups such as the American Medical Association and small ones such as the Barbershop Harmony Society. When any of them are in danger of losing access to lawmakers, Graham, 57, is supposed to intervene.
Which is what he did -- proudly -- as soon as he learned that Democratic leaders wanted to ban travel provided by lobbyists and the entities that employ them. Graham dispatched his own lobbyists and several of his most sympathetic allies to meet with House staffers. Eventually they poked two gigantic holes in the proposed prohibition.
The first opened the way for lobbyists to pay for short trips -- one day as far as the Midwest and two days to the West Coast. The second permits colleges to provide travel to lawmakers without restriction, even though they lobby in Washington a lot. (See the next item.)
Ethics advocates were disappointed. "The better policy is no privately financed travel," said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
But Graham was unabashed. Golf trips to Scotland should be nixed, he said, but not visits to taxpayer-funded programs or to industry-backed seminars. "We didn't want a total ban on travel," Graham said. "We were on top of it from the very beginning."
In fact, he and his lobbyists started their campaign a year ago after then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) first suggested a travel ban. That effort failed partly because of Graham's enterprise.
After the Democratic victory in last year's midterm elections, Graham's lobbyists -- Senior Vice President Jim Clarke and contract lobbyist James W. Rock -- targeted the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and then met with aides to Democratic House leaders Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.).
After one such meeting, Graham learned that the ban would prevent lawmakers from taking trips to colleges to give commencement addresses. He quickly asked the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities to join the crusade.
Graham also recruited other groups with sterling reputations, including the American Heart Association, the YMCA of the USA and the American Cancer Society. They went as a group from office to office on Capitol Hill and made the case that brief trips could not be mistaken for boondoggles, especially when white-hat interests like themselves were footing the bill.
The result: Graham has become Mr. Loophole, winning the exemptions and on track to getting them in the Senate as well.
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A19
Loopholes in laws and regulations sometimes seem to appear by magic, and often no one wants to claim to be the magician. But one man actually wants credit for a couple of big loopholes in the new ethics rules the House passed last month: John H. Graham IV.
Graham is the president of an organization that could exist only in Washington -- the American Society of Association Executives. In other words, he is the chief lobbyist for lobbyists.
His organization represents 22,000 association executives, from large groups such as the American Medical Association and small ones such as the Barbershop Harmony Society. When any of them are in danger of losing access to lawmakers, Graham, 57, is supposed to intervene.
Which is what he did -- proudly -- as soon as he learned that Democratic leaders wanted to ban travel provided by lobbyists and the entities that employ them. Graham dispatched his own lobbyists and several of his most sympathetic allies to meet with House staffers. Eventually they poked two gigantic holes in the proposed prohibition.
The first opened the way for lobbyists to pay for short trips -- one day as far as the Midwest and two days to the West Coast. The second permits colleges to provide travel to lawmakers without restriction, even though they lobby in Washington a lot. (See the next item.)
Ethics advocates were disappointed. "The better policy is no privately financed travel," said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
But Graham was unabashed. Golf trips to Scotland should be nixed, he said, but not visits to taxpayer-funded programs or to industry-backed seminars. "We didn't want a total ban on travel," Graham said. "We were on top of it from the very beginning."
In fact, he and his lobbyists started their campaign a year ago after then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) first suggested a travel ban. That effort failed partly because of Graham's enterprise.
After the Democratic victory in last year's midterm elections, Graham's lobbyists -- Senior Vice President Jim Clarke and contract lobbyist James W. Rock -- targeted the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and then met with aides to Democratic House leaders Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.).
After one such meeting, Graham learned that the ban would prevent lawmakers from taking trips to colleges to give commencement addresses. He quickly asked the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities to join the crusade.
Graham also recruited other groups with sterling reputations, including the American Heart Association, the YMCA of the USA and the American Cancer Society. They went as a group from office to office on Capitol Hill and made the case that brief trips could not be mistaken for boondoggles, especially when white-hat interests like themselves were footing the bill.
The result: Graham has become Mr. Loophole, winning the exemptions and on track to getting them in the Senate as well.
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."
