waitnwatch
10-01 05:35 PM
I think retrogression will improve in the future. Here is why I think so.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
wallpaper Lightning Awesome Thunder
needhelp!
09-29 11:21 AM
And oh.. we already bought a house in 2002 (had never imagined that my status would still be "temporary" after 9 years of doing the right thing)
gapala
12-17 04:47 PM
Nobody in good conscience support terrorism, no Indian, no Pakistani. I have many good friends from Pakistan and I do support Pakistan in its strive towards better and peaceful future. Does that make me a terrorist ?
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
2011 Lightning Wallpaper 17
mpadapa
09-26 10:14 AM
Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
senthil1
07-14 05:36 PM
If you go with any campaign without the support of any organisation or without any legal basis you are going to fail. Not only that if you go without IV support but at the same time use IV forum that will certainly impact the unity of IV and that will may have impact on survival of IV in future. I think Core IV Group is in fix in this issue and whatever they tell someone will be unhappy.
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
more...
pmpforgc
06-09 08:22 AM
I had looked around Alpharetta, cumming, Suwanee, Duluth etc. for new as well as recent houses.
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
2010 Lightning Wallpaper 8 next
sk2006
06-26 04:31 PM
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance.
To get more insight into why house prices haven't bottomed and why it is only the begining, read the following in your spare time and you would agree with the author on most things about what he says:
Dr. Housing Bubble Blog (http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/)
And look at this chart from the same website:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/businessweekoptionarm1.jpg
To get more insight into why house prices haven't bottomed and why it is only the begining, read the following in your spare time and you would agree with the author on most things about what he says:
Dr. Housing Bubble Blog (http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/)
And look at this chart from the same website:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/businessweekoptionarm1.jpg
more...
waitnwatch
08-05 07:28 PM
I had tried to frame the debate in my previous post which is quoted below. Never received as much as a yay or nay from anyone. On the other hand there are enough folks with a lot of bluster and rhetoric to keep the storm in the teacup going.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
hair Get Wallpaper
Macaca
04-03 08:22 AM
Soliciting for Good Citizens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
more...
unseenguy
06-26 05:07 PM
Again where are you getting that 550K value for a house from . The houses that were 500K two years back are now 400 - 450K ( exclude the extremes ). Why the HOA - can't the house be a single family home like most of US .
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
hot lands lightning Wallpaper,
sk2006
06-06 03:44 PM
why are all the non-GC-holder desis even debating owning a home?!!
is that not, like, the most laughable, stupid thing to do?
what the fu$k!! you dont have a GC, you dont have any job security, you dont have any unemployment/social security, you blow your savings on a house, stocks and houses will take about 4 solid years to get back to where they were (if ever), this country's economy is tanking, there is no love for legal immigrants, we are still only in the middle of this recession (depression?).................aah, what the hell.........
go buy your american dream you stupid desis...........you get what you deserve.
Truth: Harshly put.
In the words of the famous Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:->
"Mar chuk kahin ki tu Gham-e-Hizran se chhoot Jaye,
Kahte to hain bhale ki wo lekin buri tarah"
Translation:
"Kill yourself and you will get rid of your miseries! Well, what is said is for my good but the way it is said is very bad".
is that not, like, the most laughable, stupid thing to do?
what the fu$k!! you dont have a GC, you dont have any job security, you dont have any unemployment/social security, you blow your savings on a house, stocks and houses will take about 4 solid years to get back to where they were (if ever), this country's economy is tanking, there is no love for legal immigrants, we are still only in the middle of this recession (depression?).................aah, what the hell.........
go buy your american dream you stupid desis...........you get what you deserve.
Truth: Harshly put.
In the words of the famous Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:->
"Mar chuk kahin ki tu Gham-e-Hizran se chhoot Jaye,
Kahte to hain bhale ki wo lekin buri tarah"
Translation:
"Kill yourself and you will get rid of your miseries! Well, what is said is for my good but the way it is said is very bad".
more...
house Wallpapers · Nature Lightning
WaitingYaar
04-05 05:12 PM
jung.lee
The analysis is interesting, but this much amount has already been written off considering 100% of option ARM, and alt-ARM will fail. Furthermore, it is worth noting that if one is buying the property for personal consumption or for invetment. If for invetment, then I agree with your assesment, but if you are buying for yourself, it always a good time :-) Home sweet home!! Also always wise to pay your own mortgage than anyone else's.
Also, if the housing goes down further, you would see a much broader threat to the economy, so i feel that all will be done to contain it. We are currently at 2004 prices, and in some areas escalations on the foreclosed properties are are being seen.... So it tells something, that buyers who have been holding the cash are started to look around. But the inventory being so high that it may some sometime. However, the interest rates may not be friendly for long because of the inflation threat and considering the risks associated with the mortgages. So, this time with low rates, and low house pricess may not last long since these two things are generally inversly proportional!!
The analysis is interesting, but this much amount has already been written off considering 100% of option ARM, and alt-ARM will fail. Furthermore, it is worth noting that if one is buying the property for personal consumption or for invetment. If for invetment, then I agree with your assesment, but if you are buying for yourself, it always a good time :-) Home sweet home!! Also always wise to pay your own mortgage than anyone else's.
Also, if the housing goes down further, you would see a much broader threat to the economy, so i feel that all will be done to contain it. We are currently at 2004 prices, and in some areas escalations on the foreclosed properties are are being seen.... So it tells something, that buyers who have been holding the cash are started to look around. But the inventory being so high that it may some sometime. However, the interest rates may not be friendly for long because of the inflation threat and considering the risks associated with the mortgages. So, this time with low rates, and low house pricess may not last long since these two things are generally inversly proportional!!
tattoo Lightning wallpaper
xyzgc
12-27 12:45 AM
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
Let me give you an example... Was Lebanon directly responsible for rocket attacks on Israel? No. Was Hezbollah responsible? Yes. Wasn't Hezbollah part of the govt of Lebanon and active in Lebanese politics? Yes. Did Lebanese govt disarm Hezbollah? No. Doesn't it make Lebanon responsible? Like abcdgc pointed out, ISI is very much a part of Pakistan.
Let me give you an example... Was Lebanon directly responsible for rocket attacks on Israel? No. Was Hezbollah responsible? Yes. Wasn't Hezbollah part of the govt of Lebanon and active in Lebanese politics? Yes. Did Lebanese govt disarm Hezbollah? No. Doesn't it make Lebanon responsible? Like abcdgc pointed out, ISI is very much a part of Pakistan.
more...
pictures Best Lightning Wallpaper
easygoer
12-19 10:48 AM
I am surprised that you have been brainwashed by your religious leaders into believing what you wrote... just to refresh your memory,,
When Islam arrived in India, the Hindus welcomed the Muslims with open arms as brothers. In return Islam destroyed the entire Hindu civilization...over the years the followers of Islam killed over 100 million people. It has been documented that the largest genocide the world has ever witnessed was killing of over 100 millions hindus in the Hindukush region by Muslims. The muslim leaders �educated� Muslim men to rape Hindu women as this was a method to destroy the Hindu race. Infact raping Hindu women was part of what being a Muslim man was about! Temples were razed to the ground and villages were burned. Those who refused to convert to islam were either killed or raped if you were women. The reality is that islamic religious leaders wanted to destroy every religion from earth so that Islam the youngest religion in the world could prevail.Even today that is the aim of the islamic fanatics and cause of all the problems. Even in the recent past in this decade only.. the Taliban destroyed the Budha Statues in Afghanistan.. and people call this religion a religion of peace..., its a joke.
Islam is a religion which does not even preach to treat your own wife with respect. Its a religion which teaches men to kill their wife incase they don't obey them. Even today women are treated like doormats and "things" of pleasure for men in this religion.
Lets face it the fact is that Muslim community is now being cornered by the western world is because the violent front of the religion has become the face of Islam and the moderate religions and community in the world cannot take this anymore. That is the reason why the Muslim are suffering. Its like saying in Hinduism.. the Karma is catching up with you.
Its sad that even today in India the muslim which is a minority community is holding the whole country back.. they continue to fight the hindus where ever they can and whenever they can in places like Kashmir and unfortunately the Indian leaders and Hindu community continue to follow the principle of Non Violence which is not working.
The islam religion is not a religion of unification on the contrary the religion teaches the Muslims that non-Muslims are infidels and that they should be killed and that is the reason why Isalm was instituted through coercion and violence. So lets face Islam is everything but a religion of peace.. and yes I think the world is now waking up the violence of this religion and sooner or later the Islamic religion has to evolve into a moderate religion, failing which it will die its own death..
redcard well said! If our politician had 10% of your courage we could have been in a better position. There is one question every muslim should ask thenselves 'Why everwhere in world they have fight with all different religion's people?' They have to change their understanding about Islam.
The most important thing the educated muslims should try to stop propoaganda journalism run by muslim reporters because of them most of the muslims do not know the true facts and indulge in unnecessary hatred. These propagandas have created biggest disservice to Islam.
When Islam arrived in India, the Hindus welcomed the Muslims with open arms as brothers. In return Islam destroyed the entire Hindu civilization...over the years the followers of Islam killed over 100 million people. It has been documented that the largest genocide the world has ever witnessed was killing of over 100 millions hindus in the Hindukush region by Muslims. The muslim leaders �educated� Muslim men to rape Hindu women as this was a method to destroy the Hindu race. Infact raping Hindu women was part of what being a Muslim man was about! Temples were razed to the ground and villages were burned. Those who refused to convert to islam were either killed or raped if you were women. The reality is that islamic religious leaders wanted to destroy every religion from earth so that Islam the youngest religion in the world could prevail.Even today that is the aim of the islamic fanatics and cause of all the problems. Even in the recent past in this decade only.. the Taliban destroyed the Budha Statues in Afghanistan.. and people call this religion a religion of peace..., its a joke.
Islam is a religion which does not even preach to treat your own wife with respect. Its a religion which teaches men to kill their wife incase they don't obey them. Even today women are treated like doormats and "things" of pleasure for men in this religion.
Lets face it the fact is that Muslim community is now being cornered by the western world is because the violent front of the religion has become the face of Islam and the moderate religions and community in the world cannot take this anymore. That is the reason why the Muslim are suffering. Its like saying in Hinduism.. the Karma is catching up with you.
Its sad that even today in India the muslim which is a minority community is holding the whole country back.. they continue to fight the hindus where ever they can and whenever they can in places like Kashmir and unfortunately the Indian leaders and Hindu community continue to follow the principle of Non Violence which is not working.
The islam religion is not a religion of unification on the contrary the religion teaches the Muslims that non-Muslims are infidels and that they should be killed and that is the reason why Isalm was instituted through coercion and violence. So lets face Islam is everything but a religion of peace.. and yes I think the world is now waking up the violence of this religion and sooner or later the Islamic religion has to evolve into a moderate religion, failing which it will die its own death..
redcard well said! If our politician had 10% of your courage we could have been in a better position. There is one question every muslim should ask thenselves 'Why everwhere in world they have fight with all different religion's people?' They have to change their understanding about Islam.
The most important thing the educated muslims should try to stop propoaganda journalism run by muslim reporters because of them most of the muslims do not know the true facts and indulge in unnecessary hatred. These propagandas have created biggest disservice to Islam.
dresses lightning Wallpaper,
validIV
06-25 01:46 PM
I couldn't agree more. My first home is almost fully paid off. Peace of mind is a great thing.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
I will be happy owning one home. And hope to repay it off quickly so i dont have any BANK to answer to. Having a peace of mind that one day when i pay off the home nobody can kick me off my home for any reason is PRICELESS to me.
It's not for my grandkids. Its for my wife and my kids when I retire.
Owning 10 homes so that you can donate to your grandkids may be PRICELESS to you. I wish you the best.
more...
makeup OCC Lightning Wallpaper
new_horizon
09-27 09:26 PM
mc cain will bring the war to an end but it'll be in victory, and making sure there'll be be no need for any future war in the region. but barack's knee-jerk pull back would not only undermine the war, it'll lead to unrest, and potential problem in the future to which the US will be drawn into again. you have seen the same problem india has been facing from the same terrorists...if you just hurt them they'll keep coming back. but if you destroy them forever you can bring peace.
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
girlfriend Lightning Wallpaper
Macaca
12-30 06:23 PM
India-China Relations: It’s the economy, and no one’s stupid (http://idsa.in/system/files/IB_IndiaChinaRelations.pdf) By Joe Thomas Karackattu | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
hairstyles Lightning wallpaper in any
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
chanduv23
05-16 06:09 AM
What if they give you all a chance for applying 485 and retaining PD before they ban h1b consulting??? I guess, you all will be happy with Durbin adn Grassley ;) ;) ;)
The h1b system was designed to create brain drain in developing nations and bring them to America, but because of the implementation methodologies the opposite is happening, good people are either moving back or not coming or stuck with an employer which is not good for the economy.
America gains nothing by banning h1b people - I am sure some provision will be there to protect people and get a fair chance towards imigration even if consulting etc.. practices are modified to work in correct methodologies.
The h1b system was designed to create brain drain in developing nations and bring them to America, but because of the implementation methodologies the opposite is happening, good people are either moving back or not coming or stuck with an employer which is not good for the economy.
America gains nothing by banning h1b people - I am sure some provision will be there to protect people and get a fair chance towards imigration even if consulting etc.. practices are modified to work in correct methodologies.
thakurrajiv
04-06 09:35 AM
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier t his decade.
Jung.lee very good second post from you. People still think it is very easy to keep on holding onto your home for long time till turn around happens.
But life events can cause you to sell like
1. Job loss and not able to find job in the same area till back up money runs out.
2. Kids grow up and you need to pay for college and you have little saving as you are holding to see turn around
3. Hope not but some medical emergency.
There can be many more situations. Do you know what people are currently doing in these situation ?
Get money from Home equity ATM machine !!
Personally I will be scared to buy now as my payment will be more than 50% of my salary and any of above situations will cause me to sell.
The prices have to become saner ....
This is very different from anything we have seen. Wall street will change, money will be harder to come by.
I think time to say " Welcome savings again ". Long term very good for US as country.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier t his decade.
Jung.lee very good second post from you. People still think it is very easy to keep on holding onto your home for long time till turn around happens.
But life events can cause you to sell like
1. Job loss and not able to find job in the same area till back up money runs out.
2. Kids grow up and you need to pay for college and you have little saving as you are holding to see turn around
3. Hope not but some medical emergency.
There can be many more situations. Do you know what people are currently doing in these situation ?
Get money from Home equity ATM machine !!
Personally I will be scared to buy now as my payment will be more than 50% of my salary and any of above situations will cause me to sell.
The prices have to become saner ....
This is very different from anything we have seen. Wall street will change, money will be harder to come by.
I think time to say " Welcome savings again ". Long term very good for US as country.
No comments:
Post a Comment