chanduv23
03-25 01:48 PM
UN,
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
wallpaper Temporary Tribal Tattoo Design
Macaca
02-21 05:24 PM
War on middle class is nothing less then a national crisis.
I was listening to find out the exact statement they use: CNN is the best news on network. Turned off immediately.
I was listening to find out the exact statement they use: CNN is the best news on network. Turned off immediately.
dealsnet
01-07 03:10 PM
Jesus didn't change any commandments. Read bible and comment. He said about the summary for the 10 commnandment. He said 1. love your God 2. Love your neighbour. It contains all commandments. Read the commandments. You will see it contains these 2 meanings only.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
2011 Temporary Tribal Floral
gimme_GC2006
03-23 12:31 PM
You/lawyer/employer may have forgotten to shred the extra/unwanted documents. Someone may have got hold of them.
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
more...
abracadabra102
12-28 10:24 AM
India defeating entire British empire without firing a weapon? Where did this come from? British colonized Indians for 150 years!
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
alterego
12-27 11:23 AM
Ofcourse its Pakistan's responsibility since we created them. But the question is, where do you go from here?
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
more...
ssa
06-24 06:18 PM
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
Not exactly. Whatever one saves by renting can be invested somewhere else. So the apples to apples comparison would be the return homeowner gets on the amount of his monthly mortgage payment that goes towards the principle (home equity) to the return the renter gets on the difference he invested. Return on home equity is currently negative all over US (houses declining in price) where as you still can get some positive returns on 100% safe investment like CDs or US treasury bills.
In any case majority of your payment for the first five year goes towards paying interest. So unless you expect hosue prices to rise in next 3-4 years - a remote possibility, the best we can hope for is they stabilize - there is no monitory benefit to be gained by buying now against renting for some more time and saving more money for your future down payment.
Not exactly. Whatever one saves by renting can be invested somewhere else. So the apples to apples comparison would be the return homeowner gets on the amount of his monthly mortgage payment that goes towards the principle (home equity) to the return the renter gets on the difference he invested. Return on home equity is currently negative all over US (houses declining in price) where as you still can get some positive returns on 100% safe investment like CDs or US treasury bills.
In any case majority of your payment for the first five year goes towards paying interest. So unless you expect hosue prices to rise in next 3-4 years - a remote possibility, the best we can hope for is they stabilize - there is no monitory benefit to be gained by buying now against renting for some more time and saving more money for your future down payment.
2010 hair temporary tribal women
pappu
08-05 08:41 PM
Can someone note the
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
more...
nojoke
06-26 04:58 PM
Well - your approach smells of speculation, which is pretty dangerous!!
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
No. Speculators generally drive up the prices. What I am doing is not speculation. It is being cautious and rational(with the data I have). The one who drove up the housing price are the ones who were speculating that it will go up in price forever and created this huge bubble. You got the meaning of speculation wrong.
Speculation is "engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price."
There are people who are waiting for the house prices to come to back to sane levels. And there are people who cannot get loan even if they wish to buy. They are not speculators.
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
No. Speculators generally drive up the prices. What I am doing is not speculation. It is being cautious and rational(with the data I have). The one who drove up the housing price are the ones who were speculating that it will go up in price forever and created this huge bubble. You got the meaning of speculation wrong.
Speculation is "engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price."
There are people who are waiting for the house prices to come to back to sane levels. And there are people who cannot get loan even if they wish to buy. They are not speculators.
hair tribal tattoo
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
gcseeker2002
12-27 10:49 PM
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
>>>>>It will be the same if terrorists take out entire airports by their terror actions, which they were about to do in Mumbai that failed on 11/26. So no point worrying about what if.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
>>>>>At this rate they will take another 50 years to kill themselves, but will continue to torment India till they die, they are like a cockroach that keeps wriggling till it dies, and does not matter if you just cut off its legs, etc.
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
>>>>>If we dont destroy the Pakis now, tomorrow their terrorists will take out 1000s, lakhs while we sit and wait.
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
>>>>>That is a true statement, but who cares, look at Israel that takes out Hamas buildings even though no hamas terrorists are in those buildings.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
>>>>>They are already united, it is Indians who are divided.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
>>>>>No comments.
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
War is bad but required to quell bad people, some people just dont get it the soft way.
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
>>>>>It will be the same if terrorists take out entire airports by their terror actions, which they were about to do in Mumbai that failed on 11/26. So no point worrying about what if.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
>>>>>At this rate they will take another 50 years to kill themselves, but will continue to torment India till they die, they are like a cockroach that keeps wriggling till it dies, and does not matter if you just cut off its legs, etc.
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
>>>>>If we dont destroy the Pakis now, tomorrow their terrorists will take out 1000s, lakhs while we sit and wait.
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
>>>>>That is a true statement, but who cares, look at Israel that takes out Hamas buildings even though no hamas terrorists are in those buildings.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
>>>>>They are already united, it is Indians who are divided.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
>>>>>No comments.
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
War is bad but required to quell bad people, some people just dont get it the soft way.
hot Temporary Tattoos - Fake
walking_dude
09-29 12:42 PM
Precisely my point! Majority of EB immigrants are pro-Democratic party and possible future contributors to Obama 2012 campaign.
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
I got my green card earlier this year, and one of the first things that I did after getting it was contribute to Obama's primary campaign. Now I've been contributing to his election campaign (I'm sure that there's a public access site you can look up contribution at).
.
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
I got my green card earlier this year, and one of the first things that I did after getting it was contribute to Obama's primary campaign. Now I've been contributing to his election campaign (I'm sure that there's a public access site you can look up contribution at).
.
more...
house Temporary Tribal Tattoo Design
mariner5555
03-26 03:34 PM
I am still confused about the whole GC issue in buying and selling a home. Why is GC an issue in owing property or even taking overseas vacations? I have done both with absolutely no issues-caribbeans, europe, India. I have owned a home, and then decided to change jobs-move to a different city and sell my house. Heck I sold my house when I was on vacation in India. I did everything by phone and fax, and this is not some few years ago, this is 2 months ago.
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
it depends on a persons risk amount - I guess. where did you sell yr house --was it for a loss ? maybe you are lucky to have sold it in last 2 months or something is not correct here.
you can sell the house from abroad - but what if it does nt find a buyer for 6 months ..how do you make the mortgage payments.
for me GC is important - for one - I don't have to worry about status / DHS .
getting a job on GC is easier than on a EAD (u see some threads here already). on GC you can get a job is another field / part - time..without worrying about DHS / DL ..from abroad, I guess you give everything to a RE agent ..I can come up with tons of issues with it (but I know you will come up with counter explanations - so I won't bother). BTW I hope you are not a realtor right ?? some of desperate realtors do anything to convince people nowadays ..the latest I heard was telling me to buy before Hillary comes to white house ..with a mumbo jumbo explanation
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
it depends on a persons risk amount - I guess. where did you sell yr house --was it for a loss ? maybe you are lucky to have sold it in last 2 months or something is not correct here.
you can sell the house from abroad - but what if it does nt find a buyer for 6 months ..how do you make the mortgage payments.
for me GC is important - for one - I don't have to worry about status / DHS .
getting a job on GC is easier than on a EAD (u see some threads here already). on GC you can get a job is another field / part - time..without worrying about DHS / DL ..from abroad, I guess you give everything to a RE agent ..I can come up with tons of issues with it (but I know you will come up with counter explanations - so I won't bother). BTW I hope you are not a realtor right ?? some of desperate realtors do anything to convince people nowadays ..the latest I heard was telling me to buy before Hillary comes to white house ..with a mumbo jumbo explanation
tattoo Tribal Tattoo Designs
Green_Always
03-28 11:42 AM
This Thread is UN's -- :-)
more...
pictures temporary tribal tattoos
GCBatman
01-06 01:04 PM
Please provide proof(example) to support your allegation that "IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam"
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
dresses Tribal Tattoo Design - Stylish
GCOP
07-13 09:36 AM
Does IV want to change the format of the letter ? If so, modified letter from IV will be appreciated. I thank pani_6 and IV's effort to address the EB-3 situation. If necessary, IV can also arrange meeting with Department of State for discussion of EB-3 Visa allotment and delays. EB-3 situation is really dier. IV is requested to please arrange meeting with DOS.
more...
makeup 50pcs tribal tattoo temporary
desi3933
07-12 10:34 AM
No one??
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend tribal tattoo designs
singhsa3
08-05 09:35 AM
There is no point in dividing the forum. I think if someone wants to do something like this then the best course of action is to take this outside the forum or through PM.
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
hairstyles Temporary Flower Tribal Tattoo
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
hiralal
06-23 10:17 PM
I don't believe the housing market slump will last more than 3 years!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
the slump may last 2 years atleast (i.e. prices falling) ...there maybe extended period of stagnant prices (2 - 3 more years)..every year that the prices don't rise is a loss ..when you take inflation into account (this is strictly from investment point of view).
the article talks only about support to housing ..it does not say that there will be huge opposing factor of baby boomers selling their homes (and going for rentals -- this explains why builders are building more rental units) or going to their grave.
Immigration is the unknown factor but quality of immigrants will matter too ...
as for buying a house in california ..my friend who has a townhome in bay area says that his advice to anyone who wants to come to california is ..DON'T COME HERE ..let alone buy a house ..since state is almost bankrupt ..taxes are rising, school size increasing etc etc..it makes more sense to rent, make money and get out of california
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
the slump may last 2 years atleast (i.e. prices falling) ...there maybe extended period of stagnant prices (2 - 3 more years)..every year that the prices don't rise is a loss ..when you take inflation into account (this is strictly from investment point of view).
the article talks only about support to housing ..it does not say that there will be huge opposing factor of baby boomers selling their homes (and going for rentals -- this explains why builders are building more rental units) or going to their grave.
Immigration is the unknown factor but quality of immigrants will matter too ...
as for buying a house in california ..my friend who has a townhome in bay area says that his advice to anyone who wants to come to california is ..DON'T COME HERE ..let alone buy a house ..since state is almost bankrupt ..taxes are rising, school size increasing etc etc..it makes more sense to rent, make money and get out of california
GCKaMaara
12-17 02:40 PM
I remember your religious quotes in "485 Approved" thread.
Guys, Mumbai attack wounds are still unhealed and morons like Antulay is trying to divert the attention is what I am talking about.
I am with you. Antulay is a #1 chor. He used communal politics through out his life.
Guys, Mumbai attack wounds are still unhealed and morons like Antulay is trying to divert the attention is what I am talking about.
I am with you. Antulay is a #1 chor. He used communal politics through out his life.
No comments:
Post a Comment