Ramba
08-05 01:50 PM
Oh my gosh..This much argument. I do not know the PD porting is law or rule. If it is law, one can not file suit against the amended law. But one can request the law maker to change. If it is a rule, one may do that. But it does not have any merit. It is waste of time.
PD porting, in theory, is very genuine. (may be not-genuine in many cases; just to cut-short the line or line jump by creating a EB2 job) So, one cannot challagne that. Here is why. A cook may have a PD 2001 in EB3. He has right to study PhD and apply in EB1 catagory, by poring PD. There is no violation of ehics here.
PD porting, in theory, is very genuine. (may be not-genuine in many cases; just to cut-short the line or line jump by creating a EB2 job) So, one cannot challagne that. Here is why. A cook may have a PD 2001 in EB3. He has right to study PhD and apply in EB1 catagory, by poring PD. There is no violation of ehics here.
wallpaper wallpaper Albert Piercing
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question. In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone. Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible. Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
Marphad
12-22 04:38 PM
Alright! Let us be adults. It is like Sri Lanka going all over and telling the world that LTTE is as lethal as Al Qaida and is a threat to US, UK, Israel and Europe. Although US and UK has declared them as terrorist organization, I think it was more because they had a hand in Rajiv Gandhi's assasination.
Agreed, LTTE is a terror org and their issue is Sinhalese treatment of Tamils.
(another example of the tyranny of the majority against minority) .
Lankans may be followers of Buddha but when it came to Tamils, they were far from being a Buddha and more like anti-buddha!
And Israel did the same thing too. It projected its conflict with Palestinians as part of Bush's global war on terror, the centre piece of which was a war-of-choice in Iraq. Russians tried to project their conflict in Chechnya as part of Global war on terror. Now Georgia is trying to project it as a victim. The line between aggressor and the victim is becoming increasingly blurred. That is the reason I believe, this issue is much more than black and white with a shade of Gray all over it. We can argue till the cows come home but until the countries understand the motivation of (any) enemy, the enemy is not going to be defeated.
So tomorrow if I loose a job and kill someone considering responsible for it is justifiable? Where is the gray area?
Agreed, LTTE is a terror org and their issue is Sinhalese treatment of Tamils.
(another example of the tyranny of the majority against minority) .
Lankans may be followers of Buddha but when it came to Tamils, they were far from being a Buddha and more like anti-buddha!
And Israel did the same thing too. It projected its conflict with Palestinians as part of Bush's global war on terror, the centre piece of which was a war-of-choice in Iraq. Russians tried to project their conflict in Chechnya as part of Global war on terror. Now Georgia is trying to project it as a victim. The line between aggressor and the victim is becoming increasingly blurred. That is the reason I believe, this issue is much more than black and white with a shade of Gray all over it. We can argue till the cows come home but until the countries understand the motivation of (any) enemy, the enemy is not going to be defeated.
So tomorrow if I loose a job and kill someone considering responsible for it is justifiable? Where is the gray area?
2011 fake body piercing
Pagal
06-08 05:34 AM
Hello,
Great discussions...remember a similar thread that was hot in 2008.. :)
IMHO, buying house has little to do with 'status' in the country, but much more to do with your financial capabilities, location and timing...
1. Financial Capabilities
a) Can I afford to make payments even if I've to leave US and settle somewhere else?
b) Does buying house give me any tax breaks in US that I otherwise won't get?
c) Do I have 'reserve' funds (5-6% of purchase price) to take care of maintenance etc of the house?
2. Location
a) Is the neighbourhood dependent on a stable source of economic activity (e.g. tech industry areas like Bay Area or traditional industry areas like Texas)
b) Can the house be rented (if not, I would be cautious)?
c) Is the demographics well off (if not, bad economy may have a larger impact)?
3. Timing
a) Has housing appreciated by more than 2-3% per annum in the neighbourhood since 2000 (if yes, I would be cautious)?
b) Can I get 1-time tax benefits?
c) Can I make more money through other investments (leverage adjusted)?
The final decision is always personal and is neither right or wrong...its just a choice that the individuals make... good luck to those who are considering home ownership....
@pmpforgc,
Make as low a down payment as possible as the money supply is cheap as of now....if interest rates are higher than what you can get as investment return in the market, then making as large a down payment as possible makes sense... as of now, cost of money is at 5-6% and you can get more than that through investments...just my 2 cents!
Great discussions...remember a similar thread that was hot in 2008.. :)
IMHO, buying house has little to do with 'status' in the country, but much more to do with your financial capabilities, location and timing...
1. Financial Capabilities
a) Can I afford to make payments even if I've to leave US and settle somewhere else?
b) Does buying house give me any tax breaks in US that I otherwise won't get?
c) Do I have 'reserve' funds (5-6% of purchase price) to take care of maintenance etc of the house?
2. Location
a) Is the neighbourhood dependent on a stable source of economic activity (e.g. tech industry areas like Bay Area or traditional industry areas like Texas)
b) Can the house be rented (if not, I would be cautious)?
c) Is the demographics well off (if not, bad economy may have a larger impact)?
3. Timing
a) Has housing appreciated by more than 2-3% per annum in the neighbourhood since 2000 (if yes, I would be cautious)?
b) Can I get 1-time tax benefits?
c) Can I make more money through other investments (leverage adjusted)?
The final decision is always personal and is neither right or wrong...its just a choice that the individuals make... good luck to those who are considering home ownership....
@pmpforgc,
Make as low a down payment as possible as the money supply is cheap as of now....if interest rates are higher than what you can get as investment return in the market, then making as large a down payment as possible makes sense... as of now, cost of money is at 5-6% and you can get more than that through investments...just my 2 cents!
more...
nojoke
01-01 02:26 PM
earlier even I had views like yours (one of our close friend was killed in 1993 blasts) ,,but think with a cool mind ..war will just lead to loss of more lives, economy everywhere will be devastated and you get more hardcore idiots/fundamentalists ..you don't set a house on fire to kill few rats ..there are changes happening ..pakistan has killed many terrorists on its borders
lets first see where we Indians are at fault ..which did congress (I) remove POTA, why were they (BJP included) advocating more train/bus tours with pakistan, why grant them visas at all ..why can't India fortify its borders (apparently politicians have tons of money for foreign tours and medical visits ..VP singh, kamal nath , there was one politician from Tamil nadu who spent crores and crores in a hospital in texas) ..why can't they give proper salary, weapons, immunity to police force ..why do they give special status to Indian muslims (instead of trying to integrate them in the main stream), why the HAJ subsidy ..I can go on and on ..lets first focus on changing these things before talking about war
There are more problems to solve. But we don't need to tolerate another problem from pakistan. Do we need to wait to clean up our mess, while pakistan creates more mess in our country. No country is perfect. That is not a reason to allow another country to threaten and 'bleed by thousand cuts'. Even the most advanced countries(including USA) is not without corruption. But these counties do act when attacked. d
lets first see where we Indians are at fault ..which did congress (I) remove POTA, why were they (BJP included) advocating more train/bus tours with pakistan, why grant them visas at all ..why can't India fortify its borders (apparently politicians have tons of money for foreign tours and medical visits ..VP singh, kamal nath , there was one politician from Tamil nadu who spent crores and crores in a hospital in texas) ..why can't they give proper salary, weapons, immunity to police force ..why do they give special status to Indian muslims (instead of trying to integrate them in the main stream), why the HAJ subsidy ..I can go on and on ..lets first focus on changing these things before talking about war
There are more problems to solve. But we don't need to tolerate another problem from pakistan. Do we need to wait to clean up our mess, while pakistan creates more mess in our country. No country is perfect. That is not a reason to allow another country to threaten and 'bleed by thousand cuts'. Even the most advanced countries(including USA) is not without corruption. But these counties do act when attacked. d
mbawa2574
03-25 11:18 PM
www.ushomeauction.com
U should look more at Pre-forclosure ( if u can get hold of one) than the foreclosed properties. Most of forclosed properties need substantial investment to fix them. Generally public gets the last chance of good foreclosed properties. It is a bank- real estate nexus which eats up the good inventory before hitting into the market. US home auction is not a real auction but more like a open house for 100 properties at the same time. Quality of inventory is not worth it.
U should look more at Pre-forclosure ( if u can get hold of one) than the foreclosed properties. Most of forclosed properties need substantial investment to fix them. Generally public gets the last chance of good foreclosed properties. It is a bank- real estate nexus which eats up the good inventory before hitting into the market. US home auction is not a real auction but more like a open house for 100 properties at the same time. Quality of inventory is not worth it.
more...
bfadlia
01-07 04:09 PM
Thank you so much for the information although I think I never asked about the trinity or salvation or the return of the messiah (only said the yearning for that return should not be used to justify one people displacing another and taking their land).. I respect jesus.. all muslims do.. let god deal with us for not accepting jesus as his son and just please stop using him as a scarecrow and leave Mohamed alone too..
peace.
these are the comments i got for this post
Getting into wrong area!
you moron
did u even read the posts.. I'm asking people to get out of that area.. to stop mixing religion with politics
peace.
these are the comments i got for this post
Getting into wrong area!
you moron
did u even read the posts.. I'm asking people to get out of that area.. to stop mixing religion with politics
2010 labret piercing
Macaca
12-29 08:07 PM
Watch Out for Russian Wild Card in Asia-Pacific (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/29/watch_out_for_russian_wild_card_in_asia-pacific__99333.html) By John Lee | Australian
Just before we were tucking into Christmas turkey and plum pudding, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi to reaffirm what the Russian leader called a "privileged partnership" between the two countries.
By contrast, Australia sees little role for Moscow in the future Asian balance of power, where the former superpower was mentioned in passing only twice in the 2009 defence white paper.
But other countries are not making the same mistake.
If India is the "swing state" in Asia's future balance of power, as a prominent CIA 2005 report put it, New Delhi is well aware that Russia remains the wild card in the region.
Medvedev and Singh signed more than 20 agreements ranging from agreements to supply India with natural gas, reaffirming a commitment for a third Indian nuclear power plant to be built by Russian engineers, and the signing of a contract for the joint development of between 250-300 fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Over the next 15 years, it is estimated that every second overseas nuclear reactor built by the Russians will be in India, while New Delhi could be the destination for more than half of all Russian arms exports in the next five years.
It is no surprise that Russia is pulling out all the stops to court India.
After all, its two main exports - energy and arms - are exactly what India needs.
There is a long economic and strategic history of partnership between the two countries that began in the 1950s when the former Soviet Union and India became allies.
But just as Moscow sees new opportunities in a rising India, New Delhi still sees value in a declining Russia.
The problem for Russia is not just the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and a patchy commitment to economic reform after the Boris Yeltsin era, but a declining population.
Russia has experienced periods of dramatic population decline before, from 1917-23, 1933-34 and 1941-46.
Since 1992, and despite the absence of famine or war, Russian deaths have exceeded births by a staggering 13 million.
With 141 million people now, numbers could be as low as 120 million by 2030.
Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe that Russia can play the wildcard role in Asia's future balance of power.
First, the common wisdom that Russia is moving closer to China in order to counterbalance America and its European and Asian allies and partners is incorrect, meaning that the Russian wild card is still very much in play.
While Russia is preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorised movements into Siberia and the Far East.
Beijing is about six times closer to the port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories.
Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil, gas and timber-rich areas.
Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's freshwater supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.
The Russian Far East is inhabited by only six million people, while the three provinces in northeast China have about 110 million Chinese inhabitants. By 2020, more than 100 million Chinese will live less than 100km to the south of these Russian territories, whose population will then number between five million and 10 million.
As Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.
The point is that Russia will have as much reason to balance against China's rise as encouraging it. As the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, put it, the key is to control the Rimland (Western, Southern and Eastern) Eurasia.
A small handful of long-sighted strategists in Washington, Tokyo, Moscow and New Delhi see potential for a grand alliance of convenience that can effectively constrain Chinese influence in Central, South and East Asia. How Russia plays its strategic cards in this context will go a long way in shaping Eurasia.
That Russia may choose to tilt the balance against China in the future is also backed by diverging world views of these two countries.
Should China continue its rise, Washington, Tokyo, New Delhi and Moscow will seek a favourable multipolar balance of power in Asia, even if it remains under American leadership.
By contrast, China sees the coming regional and world order as a bipolar one defined by US-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier, something that is very difficult for a proud "Asian" power such as Russia to accept.
Second, a declining Russia retains significant national and institutional strengths. For example, Russia will remain a legitimate nuclear military power with a large and pre-existing nuclear arsenal. It is also a genuine energy superpower and a global leader in advanced weaponry technologies.
These factors all but guarantee Moscow a prominent position in the future strategic-military balance.
Furthermore, Russia will retain its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Given the difficulty of reforming the council, Moscow will continue to exercise a disproportionate influence through the UN, even if it continues to decline as a country.
Finally, Russia has that indefinable quality of seeing itself as a natural great power. This all adds up to Russia remaining a big player in Asia, with significant ability to influence, disrupt and complicate the plans of other great powers, even if it can no longer be dominant.
New Delhi and Beijing believe that Moscow is well position to remain Asia's wild card.
Australia should prepare for this as well.
John Lee is a foreign policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.
Just before we were tucking into Christmas turkey and plum pudding, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi to reaffirm what the Russian leader called a "privileged partnership" between the two countries.
By contrast, Australia sees little role for Moscow in the future Asian balance of power, where the former superpower was mentioned in passing only twice in the 2009 defence white paper.
But other countries are not making the same mistake.
If India is the "swing state" in Asia's future balance of power, as a prominent CIA 2005 report put it, New Delhi is well aware that Russia remains the wild card in the region.
Medvedev and Singh signed more than 20 agreements ranging from agreements to supply India with natural gas, reaffirming a commitment for a third Indian nuclear power plant to be built by Russian engineers, and the signing of a contract for the joint development of between 250-300 fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Over the next 15 years, it is estimated that every second overseas nuclear reactor built by the Russians will be in India, while New Delhi could be the destination for more than half of all Russian arms exports in the next five years.
It is no surprise that Russia is pulling out all the stops to court India.
After all, its two main exports - energy and arms - are exactly what India needs.
There is a long economic and strategic history of partnership between the two countries that began in the 1950s when the former Soviet Union and India became allies.
But just as Moscow sees new opportunities in a rising India, New Delhi still sees value in a declining Russia.
The problem for Russia is not just the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and a patchy commitment to economic reform after the Boris Yeltsin era, but a declining population.
Russia has experienced periods of dramatic population decline before, from 1917-23, 1933-34 and 1941-46.
Since 1992, and despite the absence of famine or war, Russian deaths have exceeded births by a staggering 13 million.
With 141 million people now, numbers could be as low as 120 million by 2030.
Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe that Russia can play the wildcard role in Asia's future balance of power.
First, the common wisdom that Russia is moving closer to China in order to counterbalance America and its European and Asian allies and partners is incorrect, meaning that the Russian wild card is still very much in play.
While Russia is preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorised movements into Siberia and the Far East.
Beijing is about six times closer to the port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories.
Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil, gas and timber-rich areas.
Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's freshwater supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.
The Russian Far East is inhabited by only six million people, while the three provinces in northeast China have about 110 million Chinese inhabitants. By 2020, more than 100 million Chinese will live less than 100km to the south of these Russian territories, whose population will then number between five million and 10 million.
As Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.
The point is that Russia will have as much reason to balance against China's rise as encouraging it. As the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, put it, the key is to control the Rimland (Western, Southern and Eastern) Eurasia.
A small handful of long-sighted strategists in Washington, Tokyo, Moscow and New Delhi see potential for a grand alliance of convenience that can effectively constrain Chinese influence in Central, South and East Asia. How Russia plays its strategic cards in this context will go a long way in shaping Eurasia.
That Russia may choose to tilt the balance against China in the future is also backed by diverging world views of these two countries.
Should China continue its rise, Washington, Tokyo, New Delhi and Moscow will seek a favourable multipolar balance of power in Asia, even if it remains under American leadership.
By contrast, China sees the coming regional and world order as a bipolar one defined by US-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier, something that is very difficult for a proud "Asian" power such as Russia to accept.
Second, a declining Russia retains significant national and institutional strengths. For example, Russia will remain a legitimate nuclear military power with a large and pre-existing nuclear arsenal. It is also a genuine energy superpower and a global leader in advanced weaponry technologies.
These factors all but guarantee Moscow a prominent position in the future strategic-military balance.
Furthermore, Russia will retain its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Given the difficulty of reforming the council, Moscow will continue to exercise a disproportionate influence through the UN, even if it continues to decline as a country.
Finally, Russia has that indefinable quality of seeing itself as a natural great power. This all adds up to Russia remaining a big player in Asia, with significant ability to influence, disrupt and complicate the plans of other great powers, even if it can no longer be dominant.
New Delhi and Beijing believe that Moscow is well position to remain Asia's wild card.
Australia should prepare for this as well.
John Lee is a foreign policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.
more...
walking_dude
09-28 08:01 PM
Obama presidency will be a positive experience or a negative, based on whether Sen. Obama chooses to show Leadership or panders to the extreme left-wing of his party.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
hair prince albert piercing videos.
Macaca
05-01 08:29 AM
Lobbyists Who Bundle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001506.html) -- Their fundraising for congressional candidates should be disclosed, Tuesday, May 1, 2007
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
more...
ssa
06-23 04:53 PM
Besides other errors in calculation which have been already discussed above, the numbers assumed here are unrealistic.
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
hot albert piercing videos.
easygoer
01-06 06:35 PM
Palestine people definitely deserve a state of their own. They have been living there for thousands of years. So does Israelis. Israel is surrounded by hostile arab countries that waged war against Israel several times. Perhaps, this is the reason why Israel reacts (or over reacts at times) to any attack.
Palestine state could have formed several years ago. International community tried real hard several times to find a closure to this issue. These efforts were always nixed by 1) Hamas thugs 2) Surrounding arab countries (and to some extent other muslim countries).
If you want to blame someone for Palestine plight today, blame these two actors.
The palestine problem was created by British people without considering Palestian's approval for the same. What palestinians are asking is their legitimate right. So Hamas is not the first party to blame for palestinian's problem. But Britain is the first person.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
Palestine state could have formed several years ago. International community tried real hard several times to find a closure to this issue. These efforts were always nixed by 1) Hamas thugs 2) Surrounding arab countries (and to some extent other muslim countries).
If you want to blame someone for Palestine plight today, blame these two actors.
The palestine problem was created by British people without considering Palestian's approval for the same. What palestinians are asking is their legitimate right. So Hamas is not the first party to blame for palestinian's problem. But Britain is the first person.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
more...
house 2011 mense van Prins Albert aan prince albert piercing procedure
ArkBird
01-10 03:36 AM
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
And your source is RASHID KHALIDI!
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
And your source is RASHID KHALIDI!
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
tattoo prince albert piercing videos.
JunRN
06-07 02:07 PM
JunRN, it all depends on how much risk are you willing to take in what area. Equity is generally believed or historically trended to provide 10% returns over 10 years span (multiple market cycles). Where as dwelling as an investment provides a marginal 3 to 5% depending on location in a normal growth rate (Exception to Bubble). Equity market has nose dived as did housing market and people consider it too risky to invest at this stage in equity due to uncertinities (lot of companies may not make it through though times or No. PC companies which has become QPC -filed for chapter11 protection has increased) even though it doesn't involve huge amounts as housing at per unit basis. For investers, same applies for dwelling investment as well at a higher scale. More Chapter 11->more job losses->more houses on foreclosure.
Just to counter your argument, Let me tell you one scenario, When stock market went down, I invested in shares some time back in February 09, as of today, If I look at the individual investment, it stands at 60% increased. But I do not think that it will provide me a 60% returns.. over 10 years... I expect only 10% and may increase to 15% in the long run which is a ball park number.
Lot of sellers/brokers referred Zillow during 2006 and early 2007 (Bubble) to sell their houses at an inflated prices as I mentioned earlier, when it went up 20000 per month for several months.. Based on these numbers..people streached themself and jumped to grab one before it goes beyond their reach thinking that it will continue to go up.. Now, the houses values under water and they are whining about it every day and night.. some of their home values evapourated by 30 to 40%. (I am talking about 100,000 to 150,000 south). Zillow goes up and down.. in short term depending on historic sales and builder's listing price changes, not based on any economic outlook. Every agent wears two hats and is two-faced, because a home�s �value� has to be higher when represent a seller and lower when represent a buyer. The Zillow range of value represents best hope for buyer at the low end of the range, and highest for seller at the high end of that range.
Here's what they say about it in disclaimer "The Zestimate is not an appraisal and you won't be able to use it in place of an appraisal, though you can certainly share it with real estate professionals. It is a computer-generated estimate of the worth of a house today, given the data we have available. Zillow.com does not offer the Zestimate as the basis of any specific real-estate-related financial transaction. Our data sources may be incomplete or incorrect; also, we have not physically inspected a specific home."
My point is, Unless the correction happens in housing market, which is widely believed to be another 10 to 12% further south from where it stands now.. there is always a risk in buying one thinking that its going to appreciate in next 10 years. Remember though the demand cycles for realty market is lenghty ones which will rise once in 10 to 15 years but this does not mean that there's going to be another bubble again to hike it up by 100 and 200% :). It may rise as historically did to provide a 3 to 4% returns. This is regardless of location... location.. location.. First, It will take time to stabilize the market just because there's too much supply, affordiability issue and aging population.
Buy or not, depends on whether and how much you are willing and open to take risk. Higher the risk, higher the returns.. doesn't mean it applies to stupid decisions... One thing I wanted to mention though, we have utilization value for living in a house, bigger than an apartment, again its an individual perspective.
I have not entered into the discussion of the intrinsic/utilization value of owning a home specially with 3 small kids like mine because it's hard to put a $$ value without being biased.
The 10 to 12% down south estimate might be true on the average. However, from where I stand now, in my county not just my zip code, house prices started to go up by 0.8% since January. It might still go down as I see fluctuations but I feel that it's stabilizing already.
Could I have waited until home prices go down another 10%? Probably a wiser decision but as I monitor home purchase price of same model as mine in same community, not one was able to buy same model home as low as my purchase price. So I felt relieved.
But only time can tell, right? All I'm doing right now is to satisfy myself that I made a right decision. Should I find out that it's a mistake, I should be truthful to myself that I did. There's no reason to lie to my ownself.
Just to counter your argument, Let me tell you one scenario, When stock market went down, I invested in shares some time back in February 09, as of today, If I look at the individual investment, it stands at 60% increased. But I do not think that it will provide me a 60% returns.. over 10 years... I expect only 10% and may increase to 15% in the long run which is a ball park number.
Lot of sellers/brokers referred Zillow during 2006 and early 2007 (Bubble) to sell their houses at an inflated prices as I mentioned earlier, when it went up 20000 per month for several months.. Based on these numbers..people streached themself and jumped to grab one before it goes beyond their reach thinking that it will continue to go up.. Now, the houses values under water and they are whining about it every day and night.. some of their home values evapourated by 30 to 40%. (I am talking about 100,000 to 150,000 south). Zillow goes up and down.. in short term depending on historic sales and builder's listing price changes, not based on any economic outlook. Every agent wears two hats and is two-faced, because a home�s �value� has to be higher when represent a seller and lower when represent a buyer. The Zillow range of value represents best hope for buyer at the low end of the range, and highest for seller at the high end of that range.
Here's what they say about it in disclaimer "The Zestimate is not an appraisal and you won't be able to use it in place of an appraisal, though you can certainly share it with real estate professionals. It is a computer-generated estimate of the worth of a house today, given the data we have available. Zillow.com does not offer the Zestimate as the basis of any specific real-estate-related financial transaction. Our data sources may be incomplete or incorrect; also, we have not physically inspected a specific home."
My point is, Unless the correction happens in housing market, which is widely believed to be another 10 to 12% further south from where it stands now.. there is always a risk in buying one thinking that its going to appreciate in next 10 years. Remember though the demand cycles for realty market is lenghty ones which will rise once in 10 to 15 years but this does not mean that there's going to be another bubble again to hike it up by 100 and 200% :). It may rise as historically did to provide a 3 to 4% returns. This is regardless of location... location.. location.. First, It will take time to stabilize the market just because there's too much supply, affordiability issue and aging population.
Buy or not, depends on whether and how much you are willing and open to take risk. Higher the risk, higher the returns.. doesn't mean it applies to stupid decisions... One thing I wanted to mention though, we have utilization value for living in a house, bigger than an apartment, again its an individual perspective.
I have not entered into the discussion of the intrinsic/utilization value of owning a home specially with 3 small kids like mine because it's hard to put a $$ value without being biased.
The 10 to 12% down south estimate might be true on the average. However, from where I stand now, in my county not just my zip code, house prices started to go up by 0.8% since January. It might still go down as I see fluctuations but I feel that it's stabilizing already.
Could I have waited until home prices go down another 10%? Probably a wiser decision but as I monitor home purchase price of same model as mine in same community, not one was able to buy same model home as low as my purchase price. So I felt relieved.
But only time can tell, right? All I'm doing right now is to satisfy myself that I made a right decision. Should I find out that it's a mistake, I should be truthful to myself that I did. There's no reason to lie to my ownself.
more...
pictures albert piercing).
shensh
04-09 01:33 PM
Chill out pal, please don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
Quote:
pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYBODY wants those doing Ms and PhD in certain disciplines to stay. They do no harm AT ALL and actually are an asset.
Consultants need to be curtailed.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
Quote:
pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYBODY wants those doing Ms and PhD in certain disciplines to stay. They do no harm AT ALL and actually are an asset.
Consultants need to be curtailed.
dresses Prince Albert piercing on
StuckInTheMuck
08-05 02:48 PM
Two guys are moving about in a supermarket when their carts collide.
One says to the other, "I'm sorry - I was looking for my wife."
"What a coincidence, so am I, and I'm getting a little desperate."
"Well, maybe I can help you. What does your wife look like?"
"She's tall, with long hair, long legs, firm boobs and a tight ass.
What's your wife look like?"
"Never mind, let's look for yours!"
One says to the other, "I'm sorry - I was looking for my wife."
"What a coincidence, so am I, and I'm getting a little desperate."
"Well, maybe I can help you. What does your wife look like?"
"She's tall, with long hair, long legs, firm boobs and a tight ass.
What's your wife look like?"
"Never mind, let's look for yours!"
more...
makeup big tits piercing. labret
abracadabra102
12-26 08:03 PM
Attacking Pakistan is a stupid idea.The hardcore hawks in Pak wants this only.
By war this side crores will die and that side crores will die. The Laskar e toiba will go to hiding in NWF and plan for next attack. India will be backward for 10 years and Pak will be backwards for 20 years.Do you want this ?
Don't attack Pak. It will be a failed state on its own. By war between us , China is going to gain.So, the people who want war with Pak by sitting comfortably in US, please think once again. It is not like going to picnic. It is life and death man.
America is failing in tackling terror in Iraq and Afganistan. Israel is failing in tackling the Hamas. Srilanka is failing with Tamil tigers.So tit for tat is not working. It will only aggrevate the problem.
Unless the fools in Pak understand the importance of real education and tolerance , they will go to drain .Now the whole world knows Pak is the culprit.They even disown their own citizen who got captured in Bombay attack.Such is the pathetic condition of proud muslim country .Shame !
My suggestion is ask US to attack Laskar e Toiba training facilities in Pak.[ Six americans and four isralies died in the Bombay attack. That is enough reason for America's attack.]
If US attacks Pak , the stupid people in Pak can't do anything. That way , Indian innocent jawans and common people will be spared.
Amma, I agree with first part of your post. We do not have to go to war with pakistan. It is on its death bed already. Pakistan will not dare attack India, but we should be prepared for such eventuality. You never know what a desperate nation can do!.
I disagree with second part of your post. We can not and should not rely on some other power like US to sort out our issues. We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
By war this side crores will die and that side crores will die. The Laskar e toiba will go to hiding in NWF and plan for next attack. India will be backward for 10 years and Pak will be backwards for 20 years.Do you want this ?
Don't attack Pak. It will be a failed state on its own. By war between us , China is going to gain.So, the people who want war with Pak by sitting comfortably in US, please think once again. It is not like going to picnic. It is life and death man.
America is failing in tackling terror in Iraq and Afganistan. Israel is failing in tackling the Hamas. Srilanka is failing with Tamil tigers.So tit for tat is not working. It will only aggrevate the problem.
Unless the fools in Pak understand the importance of real education and tolerance , they will go to drain .Now the whole world knows Pak is the culprit.They even disown their own citizen who got captured in Bombay attack.Such is the pathetic condition of proud muslim country .Shame !
My suggestion is ask US to attack Laskar e Toiba training facilities in Pak.[ Six americans and four isralies died in the Bombay attack. That is enough reason for America's attack.]
If US attacks Pak , the stupid people in Pak can't do anything. That way , Indian innocent jawans and common people will be spared.
Amma, I agree with first part of your post. We do not have to go to war with pakistan. It is on its death bed already. Pakistan will not dare attack India, but we should be prepared for such eventuality. You never know what a desperate nation can do!.
I disagree with second part of your post. We can not and should not rely on some other power like US to sort out our issues. We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
girlfriend hot prince albert piercing
damialok
04-07 02:24 PM
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
hairstyles hair Prince albert piercing
Macaca
12-14 11:33 AM
The Delta House Congress (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010993) The politics of futile gestures, Dec 14, 2007
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
Macaca
05-27 06:05 PM
The Audacity of Chinese Frauds (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/business/27norris.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | The New York Times
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
obviously
08-05 08:59 AM
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
No comments:
Post a Comment