funny
09-30 05:00 PM
I 100% agree with you. We are highly skilled educated people. Legally came to USA , earned Master or higher degree in field of STEM. Working hard and paying taxes , having amerincan babies but still cannot make USA as our permanant home.
It is very riskey to buy a house without having green card. Not that we will not find job if we loose current one but not sure where we end up getting job. and given housing market condition ,we will be end up loosing money if we sell house.
I have seen CIR debates for 06 - 07 , Senator Durbin was against H1b people. Even current H1b laws are very strick. After living in USA for 10-12 years if you loose job becasue of given environment and if you cannot find second soon it is possible that you may loose your legal status.
I love to see OBAMA as next president of USA. Even I am not citizen of this country but my children are. And as a responsible parent of them I wish Senator OBAMA become next president of USA. when I hear speech of Senator OBAMA & Biden I feel security of my children.
I wish Senator OBAMA will restore my trust in American Dream. Would it be appropriate if I have to move out of here along with my USA citizen children to another country ?
please forgive my ignorance and I have asked this question 2-3 times on this thread itself.
Do you think if Obama comes into power then all the people who are waiting for GC under employment based GCs will loose thier current applications and will have to start all over again in the new Point based system or the new point based system would only be for new applicants? It might very well be possible that Obama campaigns for Recapturing the lost visas and reducing the current backlog quickly so that the new process can be in placed quickly...I doubt that all the pending applicants will be asked to join the new point based queue, because no one would be willing to do it and a lot of people will be going back to thier home country and there would be a lot of crisis specially in IT as he is also campaining for Less H1B, so companies will not be able to hire new H1B.
Please clarify.
It is very riskey to buy a house without having green card. Not that we will not find job if we loose current one but not sure where we end up getting job. and given housing market condition ,we will be end up loosing money if we sell house.
I have seen CIR debates for 06 - 07 , Senator Durbin was against H1b people. Even current H1b laws are very strick. After living in USA for 10-12 years if you loose job becasue of given environment and if you cannot find second soon it is possible that you may loose your legal status.
I love to see OBAMA as next president of USA. Even I am not citizen of this country but my children are. And as a responsible parent of them I wish Senator OBAMA become next president of USA. when I hear speech of Senator OBAMA & Biden I feel security of my children.
I wish Senator OBAMA will restore my trust in American Dream. Would it be appropriate if I have to move out of here along with my USA citizen children to another country ?
please forgive my ignorance and I have asked this question 2-3 times on this thread itself.
Do you think if Obama comes into power then all the people who are waiting for GC under employment based GCs will loose thier current applications and will have to start all over again in the new Point based system or the new point based system would only be for new applicants? It might very well be possible that Obama campaigns for Recapturing the lost visas and reducing the current backlog quickly so that the new process can be in placed quickly...I doubt that all the pending applicants will be asked to join the new point based queue, because no one would be willing to do it and a lot of people will be going back to thier home country and there would be a lot of crisis specially in IT as he is also campaining for Less H1B, so companies will not be able to hire new H1B.
Please clarify.
wallpaper kid hairstyles for girls
xyzgc
12-28 01:09 AM
One thing everyone needs to realize is that 21st century wars are not cheap anymore.
India just decided to implement the 12th pay commission's recommendations to its defense forces. A surgical strike is politically a risky venture. A strike may cause immediate gains and soothe tempers of the indian public but the battle will be fought through the media reports. Also, neither does the country have a national identity system nor has India been so serious about reaching out in a pro-active way. A weak border and the continuing saga of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, not to mention caste based politics, will augment future terrorist plans.
Pakistan has found a money maker in terrorism. US Aid to pakistan to fight terrorists will reach $8B after 9/11 ( http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html ) and more will be promised when the Iraq returns to stability and the focus turns to Pakistan's neighbor Afghanistan as the Taliban are gaining control again. This has been acknowledged by the new president-elect. Zardari's snub to curtail recession by the Chinese and the Saudis only solidifies Pakistan's need to find other sources/means of making money. Providing a conduit for drug trafficking for the Afghani market is already a major revenue source. Corruption is rampant.
I believe that the rhetoric in the media about war mongering and troop pullouts from the afghan border are for think tanks in Congress and the Pentagon to act and work to defuse the so called drama of war and renew their promises of providing aid in the form of $ and arms.
India has and will continue to be a peaceful and a reactive neighbor. It will continue significant investments in capital and policy to strengthen its internal security foundation and work towards economic prosperity by defending its borders rather than be a pro-active regional cop.
What India has gained, out of this sad and unfortunate event and its subsequent actions, is its status as a responsible upcoming super power in the region with diplomacy as the arrow and its nuclear capability as its bow!
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
India just decided to implement the 12th pay commission's recommendations to its defense forces. A surgical strike is politically a risky venture. A strike may cause immediate gains and soothe tempers of the indian public but the battle will be fought through the media reports. Also, neither does the country have a national identity system nor has India been so serious about reaching out in a pro-active way. A weak border and the continuing saga of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, not to mention caste based politics, will augment future terrorist plans.
Pakistan has found a money maker in terrorism. US Aid to pakistan to fight terrorists will reach $8B after 9/11 ( http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pakistan_aid_numbers.html ) and more will be promised when the Iraq returns to stability and the focus turns to Pakistan's neighbor Afghanistan as the Taliban are gaining control again. This has been acknowledged by the new president-elect. Zardari's snub to curtail recession by the Chinese and the Saudis only solidifies Pakistan's need to find other sources/means of making money. Providing a conduit for drug trafficking for the Afghani market is already a major revenue source. Corruption is rampant.
I believe that the rhetoric in the media about war mongering and troop pullouts from the afghan border are for think tanks in Congress and the Pentagon to act and work to defuse the so called drama of war and renew their promises of providing aid in the form of $ and arms.
India has and will continue to be a peaceful and a reactive neighbor. It will continue significant investments in capital and policy to strengthen its internal security foundation and work towards economic prosperity by defending its borders rather than be a pro-active regional cop.
What India has gained, out of this sad and unfortunate event and its subsequent actions, is its status as a responsible upcoming super power in the region with diplomacy as the arrow and its nuclear capability as its bow!
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
CreatedToday
01-06 05:50 PM
Are they poor? I doubt, this is luxury!
"... at least two of his four wives, as well as several of his children ...
Mr Rayyan, a professor of Islamic law, .... his five-storey home ... He had been an advocate of men having up to four wives and as many children as possible,...
He had vowed that Hamas would go on to seize control of the West Bank from Fatah, as it had done with Gaza in a week of street battles in June 2007. He accused the Western-backed Fatah leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, of collaborating with Israel, a charge that normally means execution in Hamas's rough justice
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5429904.ece
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
"... at least two of his four wives, as well as several of his children ...
Mr Rayyan, a professor of Islamic law, .... his five-storey home ... He had been an advocate of men having up to four wives and as many children as possible,...
He had vowed that Hamas would go on to seize control of the West Bank from Fatah, as it had done with Gaza in a week of street battles in June 2007. He accused the Western-backed Fatah leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, of collaborating with Israel, a charge that normally means execution in Hamas's rough justice
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5429904.ece
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
2011 Black Women Hairstyles. Kid
jkays94
07-10 02:02 AM
Like UN said..wonder what we/they achieve with lawsuits,but we can expect a lot of digging into our cases during AOS...
(lawsuiting/challenging is no good idea with USCIS/DOS,they will not budge even a mm,they r huge monster govt organizations,it is best to move with the flow and instead work on ideas of allowing to file 485 when dates r not current etc..)
USCIS Settlement Notices and Agreements (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2492db65022ee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=2492db65022ee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
(lawsuiting/challenging is no good idea with USCIS/DOS,they will not budge even a mm,they r huge monster govt organizations,it is best to move with the flow and instead work on ideas of allowing to file 485 when dates r not current etc..)
USCIS Settlement Notices and Agreements (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2492db65022ee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=2492db65022ee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
more...
Macaca
05-09 05:44 PM
Still, Sometimes, a Great Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/us/07iht-currents07.html) By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS | New York Times
The commando who shot Osama bin Laden just above the left of his doe eyes could forever remain a ghost to Americans. His name may never be revealed; his tell-all may never be written; he, unlike other American eminences, may never be featured on �Celebrity Apprentice.�
But this ghost is a hero to a nation in need of a little stimulant. For many Americans this week, it was at once grisly and lovely to receive a reminder, courtesy of a revenge killing, that American vigor still has its moments.
These have been tough years for American power: years of a sick economy that cannot easily be healed; of wars that cannot, tactically or definitionally, be �won�; of new powers that have risen under the shelter of the Pax Americana and now will not be told what to do. Great numbers of Americans now fear that their children will not lead lives as bounteous and carefree as theirs.
And then there they were: dropping from their ladders, clearing and holding corridors, shooting to kill, escaping before anyone could interfere. The unseen scene resonated so well, perhaps, because Americans have been trained to know what it looked like. This, at least as the White House narrated it, was a standard-issue action movie midnight raid.
A raid of this dramatic kind is one of those things at which America remains unrivaled, in cinema and in real life. And so it was a moment to relive a feeling of unmitigated American supremacy. In this domain at least, there is no country like America on earth.
The trouble with the killing of Bin Laden, though, is that the triumph is an island. Victory in Abbottabad does not foreshadow greater victories in Iraq or Afghanistan, or over terrorism in general. As in so many areas of American life today, the country can do spellbinding things no other one can do, but it often struggles to perform the more prosaic feats on which its long-term fate may more heavily depend.
Consider the realm of technology, in which America, once again, has the finest elite commandos: Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Apple, Pandora. Time and again, when breakthrough technologies come, they come from America. What is the chance of a Chinese search engine displacing Google, or a game-changing device like the iPhone sprouting in France?
And yet America does not lead the world technologically in the more prosaic ways. It does not have the best or most cost-efficient mobile phone networks. The average American Internet hookup is two and a half times slower than that in South Korea. The country lacks adequate retraining programs to move people from waning professions like telemarketer and sewing machine operator into new roles in the technology sector.
It is the same with education. America is home to the greatest concentration of research universities in the world, with the best laboratories and faculties as well as, arguably, the top students. More Nobel laureates inhabit certain American campuses than live in certain moderately sized countries.
But beyond the elite corridors of American education, it is a different story. Last year, the results of the standardized Program for International Student Assessments, given to 15-year-olds worldwide, found the United States behind 16 other countries in reading and 22 in science. In response, the American education secretary, Arne Duncan, spoke of �the brutal truth that we�re being out-educated.� And that was before the recent round of budget cuts and teacher layoffs across the country, which might well make it even harder for America to be middling in the world.
And so it is in health care, where America has, at one end, the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic and Massachusetts General Hospital, which the richest patients in the world still choose over most alternatives; and, at the other end, tens of millions of uninsured people, a condition that is all but unique in the industrialized world.
So it is with immigration, where the United States continues to attract the brightest immigrants in the world, while failing year after year to resolve the massive and messy question of illegal immigration. So it is with banking, in which the United States is the leader in employing complex transactions like credit-default swaps, but has struggled with the more basic task of pairing businesses with loans.
The commandos of Abbottabad are, then, like the commandos in any number of American fields � elite troopers who play at the highest levels in the world, but whose successes are wholly their own, not easily replicated beyond their little world.
This duality of the world-beating Americans and the world-trailing ones perhaps suggests an emerging reality of U.S. life after globalization: It may be that America the country can remain vitally competitive, even as vast numbers of Americans � perhaps a majority � have a lower quality of life than prevails elsewhere. As with the U.S. Navy Seals in Pakistan, so dynamic is America�s elite that its dynamism can offset the lagging behind of others. If a country gains a $20-million-a-year hedge fund job and loses 400 $50,000-a-year industrial ones, after all, its national income figure stays the same.
But there is the problem of the 400 people � and of the 40,000 and the 40 million. There is a sense in many corners of America of there no longer being space for the ordinary, a sense of the collapse of the middle. Parents find themselves wondering how hard to push their children in this dawning age: wondering how clever and focused and dogged they will have to be to remain ahead of the world rather than chase behind it.
Memo to India, China: The U.S. Still Matters (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/09/economics-journal-memo-to-india-china-the-u-s-still-matters/) By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia | IndiaRealTime
Free trade agreements don�t kill jobs (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/04/trade-agreements-dont-kill-jobs/) By Ryan Young | The Daily Caller
If You Have the Answers, Tell Me (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/business/economy/08view.html) By N. GREGORY MANKIW | New York Times
Woman of the World (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/06/hillary-clinton-201106) By Jonathan Alter | Vanity Fair
What�s a college education worth?
Engineering and accounting degrees may provide most opportunity (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-a-college-education-worth-2011-05-03)
By Jennifer Openshaw | MarketWatch
The Best Cities For Jobs (http://blogs.forbes.com/joelkotkin/2011/05/02/the-best-cities-for-jobs/) By Joel Kotkin | New Geographer
Firms Feel 'Say on Pay' Effect (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704473104576293140070753066.html) By JOANN S. LUBLIN | Wall Street Journal
As Labor Costs Rise, Spotlight Is on Benefits (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704473104576293583385838072.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal
The commando who shot Osama bin Laden just above the left of his doe eyes could forever remain a ghost to Americans. His name may never be revealed; his tell-all may never be written; he, unlike other American eminences, may never be featured on �Celebrity Apprentice.�
But this ghost is a hero to a nation in need of a little stimulant. For many Americans this week, it was at once grisly and lovely to receive a reminder, courtesy of a revenge killing, that American vigor still has its moments.
These have been tough years for American power: years of a sick economy that cannot easily be healed; of wars that cannot, tactically or definitionally, be �won�; of new powers that have risen under the shelter of the Pax Americana and now will not be told what to do. Great numbers of Americans now fear that their children will not lead lives as bounteous and carefree as theirs.
And then there they were: dropping from their ladders, clearing and holding corridors, shooting to kill, escaping before anyone could interfere. The unseen scene resonated so well, perhaps, because Americans have been trained to know what it looked like. This, at least as the White House narrated it, was a standard-issue action movie midnight raid.
A raid of this dramatic kind is one of those things at which America remains unrivaled, in cinema and in real life. And so it was a moment to relive a feeling of unmitigated American supremacy. In this domain at least, there is no country like America on earth.
The trouble with the killing of Bin Laden, though, is that the triumph is an island. Victory in Abbottabad does not foreshadow greater victories in Iraq or Afghanistan, or over terrorism in general. As in so many areas of American life today, the country can do spellbinding things no other one can do, but it often struggles to perform the more prosaic feats on which its long-term fate may more heavily depend.
Consider the realm of technology, in which America, once again, has the finest elite commandos: Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Apple, Pandora. Time and again, when breakthrough technologies come, they come from America. What is the chance of a Chinese search engine displacing Google, or a game-changing device like the iPhone sprouting in France?
And yet America does not lead the world technologically in the more prosaic ways. It does not have the best or most cost-efficient mobile phone networks. The average American Internet hookup is two and a half times slower than that in South Korea. The country lacks adequate retraining programs to move people from waning professions like telemarketer and sewing machine operator into new roles in the technology sector.
It is the same with education. America is home to the greatest concentration of research universities in the world, with the best laboratories and faculties as well as, arguably, the top students. More Nobel laureates inhabit certain American campuses than live in certain moderately sized countries.
But beyond the elite corridors of American education, it is a different story. Last year, the results of the standardized Program for International Student Assessments, given to 15-year-olds worldwide, found the United States behind 16 other countries in reading and 22 in science. In response, the American education secretary, Arne Duncan, spoke of �the brutal truth that we�re being out-educated.� And that was before the recent round of budget cuts and teacher layoffs across the country, which might well make it even harder for America to be middling in the world.
And so it is in health care, where America has, at one end, the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic and Massachusetts General Hospital, which the richest patients in the world still choose over most alternatives; and, at the other end, tens of millions of uninsured people, a condition that is all but unique in the industrialized world.
So it is with immigration, where the United States continues to attract the brightest immigrants in the world, while failing year after year to resolve the massive and messy question of illegal immigration. So it is with banking, in which the United States is the leader in employing complex transactions like credit-default swaps, but has struggled with the more basic task of pairing businesses with loans.
The commandos of Abbottabad are, then, like the commandos in any number of American fields � elite troopers who play at the highest levels in the world, but whose successes are wholly their own, not easily replicated beyond their little world.
This duality of the world-beating Americans and the world-trailing ones perhaps suggests an emerging reality of U.S. life after globalization: It may be that America the country can remain vitally competitive, even as vast numbers of Americans � perhaps a majority � have a lower quality of life than prevails elsewhere. As with the U.S. Navy Seals in Pakistan, so dynamic is America�s elite that its dynamism can offset the lagging behind of others. If a country gains a $20-million-a-year hedge fund job and loses 400 $50,000-a-year industrial ones, after all, its national income figure stays the same.
But there is the problem of the 400 people � and of the 40,000 and the 40 million. There is a sense in many corners of America of there no longer being space for the ordinary, a sense of the collapse of the middle. Parents find themselves wondering how hard to push their children in this dawning age: wondering how clever and focused and dogged they will have to be to remain ahead of the world rather than chase behind it.
Memo to India, China: The U.S. Still Matters (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/09/economics-journal-memo-to-india-china-the-u-s-still-matters/) By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia | IndiaRealTime
Free trade agreements don�t kill jobs (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/04/trade-agreements-dont-kill-jobs/) By Ryan Young | The Daily Caller
If You Have the Answers, Tell Me (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/business/economy/08view.html) By N. GREGORY MANKIW | New York Times
Woman of the World (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/06/hillary-clinton-201106) By Jonathan Alter | Vanity Fair
What�s a college education worth?
Engineering and accounting degrees may provide most opportunity (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-a-college-education-worth-2011-05-03)
By Jennifer Openshaw | MarketWatch
The Best Cities For Jobs (http://blogs.forbes.com/joelkotkin/2011/05/02/the-best-cities-for-jobs/) By Joel Kotkin | New Geographer
Firms Feel 'Say on Pay' Effect (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704473104576293140070753066.html) By JOANN S. LUBLIN | Wall Street Journal
As Labor Costs Rise, Spotlight Is on Benefits (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704473104576293583385838072.html) By JOE LIGHT | Wall Street Journal
gc03
05-17 10:56 AM
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
more...
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
2010 anime hairstyles
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
more...
sanju
12-29 02:29 PM
I do not know how much this true ,but one thing is sure America is helping ISLAM (As of today and popular belief that america is destroying ISLAM) ..
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
hair Black Hairstyles for Kids
jthomas
06-05 02:05 PM
Appartment :-
1. I lived in a appartment for last 7 years. I was able to change jobs whenever i wish as well as i was able to get 15-20% raise everytime i changed jobs.
2. If i get a RFE for any reason or have to go back to india its very easy to pack and move rather than get stressed on selling the house at any price and going back.
3. I completely agree with the above calculation of onwing a house v/s a apartment and its a lousy investment.
4. Big personal savings+ good interest rate, can move anywhere anytime. Good interest rate, Can go out for a vacation for every quarter.
House
1. A place to live and show off.
2. Plumbing + electrician + taking care of the lawn + paying tickets for taking care of the house + association fees + mortage + fire insurance(CA) + earthquake insurance (CA) + property tax + keeping up with the status != peace of mind.
3. Personal savings = very little.
If only good if one knows when to buy and when to sell and should be lucky most of the time. (+++), saw few people doing so but lost money after 8 years now. $280K went down to $65K.
1. I lived in a appartment for last 7 years. I was able to change jobs whenever i wish as well as i was able to get 15-20% raise everytime i changed jobs.
2. If i get a RFE for any reason or have to go back to india its very easy to pack and move rather than get stressed on selling the house at any price and going back.
3. I completely agree with the above calculation of onwing a house v/s a apartment and its a lousy investment.
4. Big personal savings+ good interest rate, can move anywhere anytime. Good interest rate, Can go out for a vacation for every quarter.
House
1. A place to live and show off.
2. Plumbing + electrician + taking care of the lawn + paying tickets for taking care of the house + association fees + mortage + fire insurance(CA) + earthquake insurance (CA) + property tax + keeping up with the status != peace of mind.
3. Personal savings = very little.
If only good if one knows when to buy and when to sell and should be lucky most of the time. (+++), saw few people doing so but lost money after 8 years now. $280K went down to $65K.
more...
validIV
06-05 05:24 PM
My properties are in Woodside and Kew Gardens both in Queens, NYC. I have been fortunate as NYC is one of the best areas that kept its home value. I am certain this is not the case in 90% of the country but so far in NYC, the housing and renting market have only dropped slightly or remained stagnant in most areas here. In fact, some places are picking up again.
I will admit that one unit (3 bedroom) that I was formerly renting out for 1900 had to be dropped to 1700 to compensate for the recession. But the house that the unit was located in (2 family house) appreciated in equity by 30,000 in 1.5 years (also in February 2009) amidst the economic downturn.
As for generalizing, yes I understand that buying and owning is not for everyone, especially if your situation is temporary and you have no plans to stay in that area for long. But you are in America for God's sake. Take advantage of the system and don't be afraid of it. Why are you applying for your green card here if you dont plan to make it your home or long term? That just doesn't make sense to me. I know in the Philippines we cannot leverage as well as we can here with this system. I'm sure its the same in India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the housing bubble, it was bound to happen because banks were lending to people living beyond their means. That doesnt apply to us. Most immigrants are smart and don't buy a house unless they've done the math—even if the bank says we can afford it when we know we cannot.
Renting, in my opinion, is a stepping stone. You rent only when you are saving to buy a home. You CANNOT rent your whole life, that is just a waste and like I said before, not smart. But smart people stop renting early and pay off their homes by their late 40s. At least that is what I am aiming for. Renting out my properties allow me to do that.
With those rent/price ratio - it makes no sense indeed to rent.
If I may ask you for a huge favor - could you please PM me more details about where specifically in Queens you have those kind of rent/price ratios?
Since the market prices got so inflated - my experience is that the rent/price ratios are still wayy off historical trends. My impression (based on a few examples I have seen) is that in most of the situations - the rent would not cover the interest + property tax + maintenance, which would mean throwing away money if you buy.
If indeed there are rent to buy ratios like the ones you have mentioned - then renting would be foolishness.
I will admit that one unit (3 bedroom) that I was formerly renting out for 1900 had to be dropped to 1700 to compensate for the recession. But the house that the unit was located in (2 family house) appreciated in equity by 30,000 in 1.5 years (also in February 2009) amidst the economic downturn.
As for generalizing, yes I understand that buying and owning is not for everyone, especially if your situation is temporary and you have no plans to stay in that area for long. But you are in America for God's sake. Take advantage of the system and don't be afraid of it. Why are you applying for your green card here if you dont plan to make it your home or long term? That just doesn't make sense to me. I know in the Philippines we cannot leverage as well as we can here with this system. I'm sure its the same in India? Correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the housing bubble, it was bound to happen because banks were lending to people living beyond their means. That doesnt apply to us. Most immigrants are smart and don't buy a house unless they've done the math—even if the bank says we can afford it when we know we cannot.
Renting, in my opinion, is a stepping stone. You rent only when you are saving to buy a home. You CANNOT rent your whole life, that is just a waste and like I said before, not smart. But smart people stop renting early and pay off their homes by their late 40s. At least that is what I am aiming for. Renting out my properties allow me to do that.
With those rent/price ratio - it makes no sense indeed to rent.
If I may ask you for a huge favor - could you please PM me more details about where specifically in Queens you have those kind of rent/price ratios?
Since the market prices got so inflated - my experience is that the rent/price ratios are still wayy off historical trends. My impression (based on a few examples I have seen) is that in most of the situations - the rent would not cover the interest + property tax + maintenance, which would mean throwing away money if you buy.
If indeed there are rent to buy ratios like the ones you have mentioned - then renting would be foolishness.
hot 2010 lack kids haircuts and african american kid hairstyles.
fide_champ
04-06 06:26 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
more...
house short lack women hairstyles.
file485
07-08 11:02 AM
unitednations..!!
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
tattoo Black Hairstyles Braids For
wizpal
06-05 05:06 PM
A very simple, dumbed down calculation to see which one trumps the other, buying or renting:
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
more...
pictures scene hairstyle. images tattoo
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
dresses Teen Boys Hairstyles
GCBatman
01-06 04:53 PM
Hey guys,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
more...
makeup african american kid
pthoko
07-17 01:39 PM
I am assuming that you haven't left the country since 2005?
Going from h-4 to h-1 or L-1 to H-1b is a gray area in regards to have you actually changed your status and what happens if you maintain your old status.
What is for sure is when you are on F-1 and you file a change of status to h-1b. For sure at this point your status is h-1b.
Some lawyers will tell you that if you continue on L-1 then you have violted your status; others will tell you differently.
Anytime there is a questionable issue then you definitely want to go out and re-enter and get an I-94 card. (use auto revalidation by going to canada). This will take the gray out of it.
Once you have used auto revalidation then tell the absolute truth on the G-325a. USCIS won't be able to do anything about it. However; if they dig into it and accuse you of fraud then you are in for a long and difficult battle.(note: checking status is #1 thing uscis does in examining a 485 application).
The big danger people will have is that regardless of whether people will be able to file now or later; the dates will go backwards. During this retrogressed time; uscis will pre-adjuidcate cases. Therefore, it is possible that they could deny your case but you wouldn't be able to re-file it until the dates have become current again.
Thanks Unitednations!
I was waiting for your reply, good to see you back. I talked to my attorney(Looks like she's a good one, 20 years Expericence, for several years she's been in America's Best Lawyers). This is what she said
"I don't think that it is worth worrying about this. It is definitely not
unlawful presence, if anything you were out of status, but I think that even this is
debatable. YOu will have to deal with this issue whenever you file, so I would not use
this as a reason not to file for adjustment." SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK GOING TO CANADA AND COMING BACK WOULD PUT ME IN A STRONGER POSITION.
She says travel might have its own issues, so she wouldn't suggest going to Canada just for this, but if I want I can go. Yesterday, I thought I'll go by wahtever she says and asked her to go ahead and file. I don't know if she has filed yet. BUT this issue is always at the back of my mind and disturbing me. I think I'll never get over it....
So please give your suggestion on auto revalidation?? Initially I was thinking that I should get my H1 stamped in Canada, Now I understand this is not required. Is it a problem if I DONT have a prior H1B stamp on the passport?? What I have is my expired L1 stamp. What all do they check at the border for revalidation?? How risky is it?? Please give me your suggestion. I personally want to do it and get it out of my head, but am fearing if something bad happens.......
ALSO WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS IF MY 485 GETS DENIED BECAUSE OF THIS??
IF I have MADE A LAWFUL RE-ENTRY BY THEN, CAN I REAPPLY?
CAN I STILL MAINTAIN H1 STATUS AND PRIORITY DATE?
WHAT WOULD MY WIFE NEED TO DO, TO MAINTAIN STATUS IF SHE'S WORKING ON EAD AT THE TIME OF DENIAL?
Going from h-4 to h-1 or L-1 to H-1b is a gray area in regards to have you actually changed your status and what happens if you maintain your old status.
What is for sure is when you are on F-1 and you file a change of status to h-1b. For sure at this point your status is h-1b.
Some lawyers will tell you that if you continue on L-1 then you have violted your status; others will tell you differently.
Anytime there is a questionable issue then you definitely want to go out and re-enter and get an I-94 card. (use auto revalidation by going to canada). This will take the gray out of it.
Once you have used auto revalidation then tell the absolute truth on the G-325a. USCIS won't be able to do anything about it. However; if they dig into it and accuse you of fraud then you are in for a long and difficult battle.(note: checking status is #1 thing uscis does in examining a 485 application).
The big danger people will have is that regardless of whether people will be able to file now or later; the dates will go backwards. During this retrogressed time; uscis will pre-adjuidcate cases. Therefore, it is possible that they could deny your case but you wouldn't be able to re-file it until the dates have become current again.
Thanks Unitednations!
I was waiting for your reply, good to see you back. I talked to my attorney(Looks like she's a good one, 20 years Expericence, for several years she's been in America's Best Lawyers). This is what she said
"I don't think that it is worth worrying about this. It is definitely not
unlawful presence, if anything you were out of status, but I think that even this is
debatable. YOu will have to deal with this issue whenever you file, so I would not use
this as a reason not to file for adjustment." SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK GOING TO CANADA AND COMING BACK WOULD PUT ME IN A STRONGER POSITION.
She says travel might have its own issues, so she wouldn't suggest going to Canada just for this, but if I want I can go. Yesterday, I thought I'll go by wahtever she says and asked her to go ahead and file. I don't know if she has filed yet. BUT this issue is always at the back of my mind and disturbing me. I think I'll never get over it....
So please give your suggestion on auto revalidation?? Initially I was thinking that I should get my H1 stamped in Canada, Now I understand this is not required. Is it a problem if I DONT have a prior H1B stamp on the passport?? What I have is my expired L1 stamp. What all do they check at the border for revalidation?? How risky is it?? Please give me your suggestion. I personally want to do it and get it out of my head, but am fearing if something bad happens.......
ALSO WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS IF MY 485 GETS DENIED BECAUSE OF THIS??
IF I have MADE A LAWFUL RE-ENTRY BY THEN, CAN I REAPPLY?
CAN I STILL MAINTAIN H1 STATUS AND PRIORITY DATE?
WHAT WOULD MY WIFE NEED TO DO, TO MAINTAIN STATUS IF SHE'S WORKING ON EAD AT THE TIME OF DENIAL?
girlfriend katie holmes bob hairstyle
NKR
08-05 04:34 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)
hairstyles Twists Hairstyles For Black
ilwaiting
04-09 11:46 AM
Yes you are correct. Employee has nothing to do with the Abuse. More over most of the employers have nothing to do with the abuse as well. Lawmakers must get their facts straight before imposing such foolish laws.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
mallu
01-28 02:38 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
perm2gc
08-11 11:52 AM
In February, Dobbs asked a guest on his show: "The fact is that we are seeing hundreds of jobs being outsourced on the basis purely of a corporation's interest in achieving the lowest possible price for labor. Does that make sense to you?" Later on the same show, he declared, "Corporate America and U.S. multinationals are shipping jobs for only one reason, not for greater productivity, not for efficiencies, those are purely code words for cheaper labor costs."
Dobbs even asks viewers to send him the names of companies that outsource. He then posts the list (scroll down) on his CNN website, under the heading, "These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers."
"The results of this issue are crucial to the kind of country we live in," Dobbs told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in April.
But there comes a time when Dobbs takes off his anti-outsourcing hat. That's when he switches from financial journalist to investment advisor-for-hire, peddling a monthly newsletter containing his investment recommendations. Pony up $398 and you receive Dobbs' investment tips for two years. You'll recognize some of the companies that Dobbs recommends. That's because they're on his list of firms that are "exporting America" by shutting down U.S. operations and opening overseas facilities.
The Lou Dobbs Money Letter is published by Phillips International Inc., which is associated with Eagle Publishing, a leading publisher of conservative-themed books. In each issue, Dobbs singles out one favored company, in which he encourages subscribers to invest. He conducts an invariably softball interview with the firm's CEO, which allows both Dobbs and his guest to tout the company's prospects.
Unlike most investment advisors, Dobbs goes beyond talking up the earning potential of these companies. He typically goes out of his way to praise them as good corporate citizens. The newsletter keeps a running tally of the companies profiled, under the heading, "The following companies have been featured in the Lou Dobbs Money Letter as those 'doing good business with good people.'" The appeal is alluring: You're not just buying a smart investment choice, you're buying a piece of good citizenship.
Dobbs devoted a column in the March issue to touting the prospects of the Minnesota-based Toro Company, which makes outdoor landscaping-maintenance equipment. He told subscribers that Toro was a "long-term wealth-builder," and praised Toro's "formal code of ethics, something I think is sorely needed at more of America's companies," and its "...exemplary corporate governance structure, which aligns the interests of shareholders, employees, and customers." He concluded his interview with Toro CEO Kendrick Melrose by frankly telling him, "I like the way you treat your shareholders, employees, and customers."
One wonders whether Dobbs' admiration extends to Toro's 2002 decision to move 15% of its workforce -- about 800 jobs -- to Juarez, Mexico. Indeed, CEO Kendrick Melrose might be interested to know that Toro appears on Dobbs' own list of companies that are "exporting America."
And Toro is not alone. Of the 14 companies Dobbs has highlighted for investors since starting his newsletter last year, eight appear on his CNN website as companies that outsource jobs.
Greenpoint Financial is another company that's received conflicting treatment from Dobbs. CEO Tom Johnson enjoyed the Dobbs interview treatment in June 2003. Dobbs promised readers, "I think you'll find Tom's comments and the way he runs his business thought-provoking and insightful."
Apparently one of the "thought-provoking and insightful" methods that Dobbs was referring to was not the 2002 decision by Greenpoint to export much of its mortgage and customer-service operations to Bangalore, India, a move that produced significant savings, but that cost 150 U.S. workers their jobs. Greenpoint Mortgage, a subsidiary of Greenpoint Financial, appears on Dobbs' list of outsourcers.
When Dobbs features a company in his newsletter, he tends to stand by them, no matter what information subsequently comes to light. In December 2003, Boeing CEO Phil Condit was forced to resign amidst an ethics scandal. Dobbs had interviewed Condit for the newsletter back in June, and wrote at the time: "Boeing ranks Number 35 on Fortune's list of most admired companies. I think Phil has a lot to do with that."
After Condit's resignation, Dobbs ran a "Special Boeing Update" in the December edition of the newsletter, in which he told subscribers: "In the face of adversity, the company is being up-front and honest abut its problems...Boeing has just proven that its priorities are in the right place."
But according to the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Boeing has sent 5000 U.S. jobs overseas in recent years. And Dobbs' assurances that Boeing's priorities are in the right place don't seem to square with his inclusion of the company on the "exporting America" list.
Similarly, in November 2003, Dobbs called Bank One chief Jamie Dimon "a conscientious CEO," who "runs a tight ship with solid corporate values."
Late last year, Bank One announced plans to merge with JP Morgan-Chase and Co., which has a reputation for shipping jobs overseas. In another special update, Dobbs reassured his readers that, "[Dimon's] ability to orchestrate this merger and have it viewed as a positive move by investors...is a testament to the fact that Jamie did it for all the right reasons. As a numbers guy, Jamie knows what works and what doesn't. And I'm confident he's going to do some remarkable work in the coming months."
Again, Dobbs neglected to tell readers that Bank One is on his "exporting America" list. According to a company spokesman, Bank One has outsourced two to three hundred jobs -- mostly in software development -- to India in the last few years.
The list goes on. In May 2003 Dobbs talked up Washington Mutual to investors. According to the CWA, the banking services giant has sent 30 jobs overseas. Washington Mutual appears on Dobbs' CNN list of outsourcers.
In August 2003, Dobbs promoted Office Depot, telling investors that, "[T]he company and CEO Bruce Nelson believe strongly in making Office Depot a 'compelling place to work, shop, and invest.'" Sure enough, Office Depot is on Dobb's list of companies that are "outsourcing America."
Dobbs even asks viewers to send him the names of companies that outsource. He then posts the list (scroll down) on his CNN website, under the heading, "These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers."
"The results of this issue are crucial to the kind of country we live in," Dobbs told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in April.
But there comes a time when Dobbs takes off his anti-outsourcing hat. That's when he switches from financial journalist to investment advisor-for-hire, peddling a monthly newsletter containing his investment recommendations. Pony up $398 and you receive Dobbs' investment tips for two years. You'll recognize some of the companies that Dobbs recommends. That's because they're on his list of firms that are "exporting America" by shutting down U.S. operations and opening overseas facilities.
The Lou Dobbs Money Letter is published by Phillips International Inc., which is associated with Eagle Publishing, a leading publisher of conservative-themed books. In each issue, Dobbs singles out one favored company, in which he encourages subscribers to invest. He conducts an invariably softball interview with the firm's CEO, which allows both Dobbs and his guest to tout the company's prospects.
Unlike most investment advisors, Dobbs goes beyond talking up the earning potential of these companies. He typically goes out of his way to praise them as good corporate citizens. The newsletter keeps a running tally of the companies profiled, under the heading, "The following companies have been featured in the Lou Dobbs Money Letter as those 'doing good business with good people.'" The appeal is alluring: You're not just buying a smart investment choice, you're buying a piece of good citizenship.
Dobbs devoted a column in the March issue to touting the prospects of the Minnesota-based Toro Company, which makes outdoor landscaping-maintenance equipment. He told subscribers that Toro was a "long-term wealth-builder," and praised Toro's "formal code of ethics, something I think is sorely needed at more of America's companies," and its "...exemplary corporate governance structure, which aligns the interests of shareholders, employees, and customers." He concluded his interview with Toro CEO Kendrick Melrose by frankly telling him, "I like the way you treat your shareholders, employees, and customers."
One wonders whether Dobbs' admiration extends to Toro's 2002 decision to move 15% of its workforce -- about 800 jobs -- to Juarez, Mexico. Indeed, CEO Kendrick Melrose might be interested to know that Toro appears on Dobbs' own list of companies that are "exporting America."
And Toro is not alone. Of the 14 companies Dobbs has highlighted for investors since starting his newsletter last year, eight appear on his CNN website as companies that outsource jobs.
Greenpoint Financial is another company that's received conflicting treatment from Dobbs. CEO Tom Johnson enjoyed the Dobbs interview treatment in June 2003. Dobbs promised readers, "I think you'll find Tom's comments and the way he runs his business thought-provoking and insightful."
Apparently one of the "thought-provoking and insightful" methods that Dobbs was referring to was not the 2002 decision by Greenpoint to export much of its mortgage and customer-service operations to Bangalore, India, a move that produced significant savings, but that cost 150 U.S. workers their jobs. Greenpoint Mortgage, a subsidiary of Greenpoint Financial, appears on Dobbs' list of outsourcers.
When Dobbs features a company in his newsletter, he tends to stand by them, no matter what information subsequently comes to light. In December 2003, Boeing CEO Phil Condit was forced to resign amidst an ethics scandal. Dobbs had interviewed Condit for the newsletter back in June, and wrote at the time: "Boeing ranks Number 35 on Fortune's list of most admired companies. I think Phil has a lot to do with that."
After Condit's resignation, Dobbs ran a "Special Boeing Update" in the December edition of the newsletter, in which he told subscribers: "In the face of adversity, the company is being up-front and honest abut its problems...Boeing has just proven that its priorities are in the right place."
But according to the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Boeing has sent 5000 U.S. jobs overseas in recent years. And Dobbs' assurances that Boeing's priorities are in the right place don't seem to square with his inclusion of the company on the "exporting America" list.
Similarly, in November 2003, Dobbs called Bank One chief Jamie Dimon "a conscientious CEO," who "runs a tight ship with solid corporate values."
Late last year, Bank One announced plans to merge with JP Morgan-Chase and Co., which has a reputation for shipping jobs overseas. In another special update, Dobbs reassured his readers that, "[Dimon's] ability to orchestrate this merger and have it viewed as a positive move by investors...is a testament to the fact that Jamie did it for all the right reasons. As a numbers guy, Jamie knows what works and what doesn't. And I'm confident he's going to do some remarkable work in the coming months."
Again, Dobbs neglected to tell readers that Bank One is on his "exporting America" list. According to a company spokesman, Bank One has outsourced two to three hundred jobs -- mostly in software development -- to India in the last few years.
The list goes on. In May 2003 Dobbs talked up Washington Mutual to investors. According to the CWA, the banking services giant has sent 30 jobs overseas. Washington Mutual appears on Dobbs' CNN list of outsourcers.
In August 2003, Dobbs promoted Office Depot, telling investors that, "[T]he company and CEO Bruce Nelson believe strongly in making Office Depot a 'compelling place to work, shop, and invest.'" Sure enough, Office Depot is on Dobb's list of companies that are "outsourcing America."
No comments:
Post a Comment