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 !
wallpaper To set the record straight,
go2roomshare
04-07 07:04 PM
I am not sure why we are worrying about this bill. This makes restrictions on Consulting companies, so what Clients won't be able to find people, so they do hire people as full time instead of temporary consulting position. That is good for us we can find more full time positions from client it self. I even heard that this bill makes sure H1B are paid by market rates instead of DOL wages which are often very less than market value. Good thing for us the staring salaries would be at higher rate than present rates. This bill is bad for consulting companies but good for us. Am i missing any thing here??
Macaca
05-14 06:24 PM
An Increasing Population is a Good Thing. So is Immigration. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6941654/an-increasing-population-is-a-good-thing-so-is-immigration.thtml) By ALEX MASSIEFRIDAY | Spectator
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.
Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.
Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:
Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?
Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?
OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!
Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?
So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.
This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.
That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.
Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.
Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?
Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times
2011 novel set in the summer of
GC_Geek
08-02 10:26 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
more...
number30
03-23 05:17 PM
my only problem is Work contracts.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
nogc_noproblem
08-07 02:22 PM
You Work in Corporate America If...
You sat at the same desk for 4 years and worked for three different companies.
Your company welcome sign is attached with Velcro.
Your resume is on a diskette in your pocket.
Your company logo on your badge is applied with stick-um.
You order your business cards in "half orders" instead of whole boxes.
When someone asks about what you do for a living, you lie.
You get really excited about a 2% pay raise.
You learn about your layoff on CNN.
Your biggest loss from a system crash is that you lose your best jokes. :p
You sit in a cubicle smaller than your bedroom closet.
Salaries of the members on the Executive Board are higher than all the Third World countries' annual budgets combined.
You think lunch is just a meeting to which you drive.
It's dark when you drive to and from work.
Fun is when issues are assigned to someone else.
Communication is something your group is having problems with.
You see a good looking person and know they're a visitor.
Weekends are those days your significant other makes you stay home.
Art involves a white board.
You're already late on the assignment you just got.
You sat at the same desk for 4 years and worked for three different companies.
Your company welcome sign is attached with Velcro.
Your resume is on a diskette in your pocket.
Your company logo on your badge is applied with stick-um.
You order your business cards in "half orders" instead of whole boxes.
When someone asks about what you do for a living, you lie.
You get really excited about a 2% pay raise.
You learn about your layoff on CNN.
Your biggest loss from a system crash is that you lose your best jokes. :p
You sit in a cubicle smaller than your bedroom closet.
Salaries of the members on the Executive Board are higher than all the Third World countries' annual budgets combined.
You think lunch is just a meeting to which you drive.
It's dark when you drive to and from work.
Fun is when issues are assigned to someone else.
Communication is something your group is having problems with.
You see a good looking person and know they're a visitor.
Weekends are those days your significant other makes you stay home.
Art involves a white board.
You're already late on the assignment you just got.
more...
gsc999
05-31 07:45 PM
CNN is taking a big chance by trying to be like FOX. CNN will continue to loose viewership with such economic/ social/ culturally xenophobic news reportage.
American Senate did a great job by being so unyielding to the protectionists.
At the same time it is interesting to note the perceptible loss of self-confidence in this protectionist lobby. Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in America? Capitalism takes back seat and the country becomes more socialist like western European contries e.g. France and Germany. With the loomimg baby-boomer retirement a couple of years away this might very well be it.
Globalization trend will intensify. China and Taiwan are already the manufacturing hubs of the world, couple of more years of such unfair treatment of trendsetting immigrants in US and its all history for the knowledge workers here. Former communist countries like Russia and China become truly Capitalist while America becomes socialist driven by the likes of Lou Doubs who is couching his real agenda behind a facade of being a middle-class messiah.
American Senate did a great job by being so unyielding to the protectionists.
At the same time it is interesting to note the perceptible loss of self-confidence in this protectionist lobby. Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in America? Capitalism takes back seat and the country becomes more socialist like western European contries e.g. France and Germany. With the loomimg baby-boomer retirement a couple of years away this might very well be it.
Globalization trend will intensify. China and Taiwan are already the manufacturing hubs of the world, couple of more years of such unfair treatment of trendsetting immigrants in US and its all history for the knowledge workers here. Former communist countries like Russia and China become truly Capitalist while America becomes socialist driven by the likes of Lou Doubs who is couching his real agenda behind a facade of being a middle-class messiah.
2010 It seems that every winter the
Macaca
04-23 08:32 AM
Lobbyists Profit From Power Shift In Congress As Democrats Get Jobs, Republicans Stay On (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201021.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, April 23, 2007
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
more...
alisa
12-27 01:04 AM
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
hair watch TV in the summer.
natrajs
10-01 09:30 AM
If Obama becomes Prez
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
more...
langagadu
12-26 11:29 PM
I would say india should start war and move every a** out of POK.
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
hot Thunderbirds set to arrive 3
radhay
04-08 04:16 PM
As many have already suggested, location and time frame you have is the key. If you are in an area where there are more jobs being created and population is growing (parts of TX, NC) you should seriously consider buying if you plan to stay there for atleast 3 yrs.
We are in a period of stagnant income growth for most of the population and increased inflation and hence there is little money left to pay for inflated houses.
We are in a period of stagnant income growth for most of the population and increased inflation and hence there is little money left to pay for inflated houses.
more...
house in the Summer and Fall.
krishnam70
03-26 08:17 PM
With regards to h-1b processing; if you file an h-1b and you are silent as to the work location on the i-129 and you get an lca for your h-1b office location and then USCIS gives you an rfe for a client letter.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
tattoo Julie Brock, Christin Kennedy,
srkamath
07-13 02:15 PM
Whoever, plans to put their name and signature on this letter ......
" Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003..when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from TOP US universities) our Labors were sent back from DOL saying that the Economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 non RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years. " - sounds awkward, someone with better writing skills needs to re-write this.
"....most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time.... " - So why didn't/couldn't/wouldn't you?
"After having followed the rules set by DOL and the USCIS and waited patiently in line ignoring the short cut routes of substitute labor or converting to EB2 categories we applied for I-485 in June 07 to get our EAD's. " - I-485 to get EAD ??? Doesn't make sense....
The whole letter sounds like you are demanding some kind of entitlement......and are suggesting that those who applied for EB2 under PERM did something wrong?
" Let me take you back to the situation in 2001-2003..when a lot of current (EB3) applicants were qualified under EB2 and RIR category(many of whom had masters degrees from TOP US universities) our Labors were sent back from DOL saying that the Economy was slow and hence cant apply in EB-2. So we were forced to apply in EB3 non RIR categories, but when the economy improved in 04-05 you introduced the PERM system and most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time while the folks who applied in 2001-2004 were stuck at the backlog centers for 3 plus years. " - sounds awkward, someone with better writing skills needs to re-write this.
"....most people applied in EB2 and got their Labors cleared in few months time.... " - So why didn't/couldn't/wouldn't you?
"After having followed the rules set by DOL and the USCIS and waited patiently in line ignoring the short cut routes of substitute labor or converting to EB2 categories we applied for I-485 in June 07 to get our EAD's. " - I-485 to get EAD ??? Doesn't make sense....
The whole letter sounds like you are demanding some kind of entitlement......and are suggesting that those who applied for EB2 under PERM did something wrong?
more...
pictures on the summer menu,
Macaca
12-28 07:24 PM
Fighting for change
At home, religion had started to drive a wedge in Rubina's family. Irfan, when he talked to her at all, often chided her for not covering her hair. He wanted her to quit school and marry a man whose version of Islam was as strict as his. With her father's support, she refused.
"We don't really talk that much right now," Rubina said of her brother, who declined to be interviewed for this article.
Her father arranged for her to marry a moderate Muslim, a man who had a promising job as a hotel manager and to whom Rubina felt attracted. Still, his family insisted that she withdraw from college to start preparing for her nuptials. With her brother and father pushing for the marriage, she agreed.
She gave up her dreams of an English-language degree, a steppingstone for working-class Indians seeking better jobs in the country's booming call centers and outsourcing industries.
The trajectory of her life suddenly seemed predictable, she thought, from fiancee to wife to mother and, as is tradition in many Muslim families, caretaker of her husband's home and family. But she still refused to cover her hair.
Not long after she was engaged, 10 gunmen - young Muslims suspected to be part of a Pakistani jihadi group - crossed the Arabian Sea and came ashore in Mumbai, India's financial and cultural capital. During a three-day siege of the city, the assailants killed 166 people and injured scores - including Muslims - in part as retribution for atrocities in Gujarat, according to recordings of their cellphone conversations, which the Indian government later released.
It was a turning point for India's Muslim community. For the first time in anyone's memory, many Muslim leaders came together to express anger against Pakistan, where the attackers were said to have been trained. Muslims in Mumbai even refused to bury the gunmen, nine of whom died in the attacks. The backlash was also directed at extremists within the Muslim community.
"Many Muslims were very worried that we would be attacked after the siege of Mumbai," Rubina said. "We stayed at home, closed our shops. But after watching the Muslims of Mumbai protest in the streets, some here found the courage to protest against the terrorists and explain where we stood."
The anti-extremist movement spread to other Indian cities with large Muslim populations, including Ahmedabad. Rubina and other women in her neighborhood saw it as an opportunity to speak out against extremism at a time when fatwas, or religious decrees, against women were on the rise.
"Why do Muslim woman have to be so docile and submissive?" asked Khan, the social worker, who opened a chapter of a national Muslim women's group just down the street from Rubina's house. "Everyone is complaining about terrorists. This is the moment for Muslim women to speak up about our rights, too."
The women's group filed, and later won, a lawsuit against the city accusing it of failing to provide electricity, water, and sewage and trash services in Muslim communities.
Emboldened by that success, Rubina soon began studying health issues as part of a government campaign to help young mothers in the neighborhood care for sick children, offering health tips and medicine.
"Many families here still think it's not safe for a girl to be out in offices or on the roads," she said one recent day, braiding her long hair and loading her briefcase with notes about neighbors in need.
She walked past the mosque where her brother prayed. Nearby, children played hopscotch over open sewers clogged with plastic bags and crushed soda cans. She paused and tried to remember what her life had been like, how safe she had felt before the riots. Now 22, she wondered whether her life would have been different.
"Would we have a better life?" she asked. "Would Muslims have a better life?"
Just weeks ago, Rubina married the hotel manager. "My husband and his family will let me work. That is what's important," she said. "I don't want to sit home. There is a lot of work to do in the community. We are still recovering."
Her brother attended the wedding ceremony and praised her work as a health activist, one of the few times he has let on that he was proud of her.
Rubina glowed in a red sari, her hands stained with henna. She danced with the women in a midnight celebration at her home. And her father and brother danced in a nearby room.
Muslim Women Gain Higher Profile in U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/middleeast/28iht-muslim28.html) By BRIAN KNOWLTON | New York Times
At home, religion had started to drive a wedge in Rubina's family. Irfan, when he talked to her at all, often chided her for not covering her hair. He wanted her to quit school and marry a man whose version of Islam was as strict as his. With her father's support, she refused.
"We don't really talk that much right now," Rubina said of her brother, who declined to be interviewed for this article.
Her father arranged for her to marry a moderate Muslim, a man who had a promising job as a hotel manager and to whom Rubina felt attracted. Still, his family insisted that she withdraw from college to start preparing for her nuptials. With her brother and father pushing for the marriage, she agreed.
She gave up her dreams of an English-language degree, a steppingstone for working-class Indians seeking better jobs in the country's booming call centers and outsourcing industries.
The trajectory of her life suddenly seemed predictable, she thought, from fiancee to wife to mother and, as is tradition in many Muslim families, caretaker of her husband's home and family. But she still refused to cover her hair.
Not long after she was engaged, 10 gunmen - young Muslims suspected to be part of a Pakistani jihadi group - crossed the Arabian Sea and came ashore in Mumbai, India's financial and cultural capital. During a three-day siege of the city, the assailants killed 166 people and injured scores - including Muslims - in part as retribution for atrocities in Gujarat, according to recordings of their cellphone conversations, which the Indian government later released.
It was a turning point for India's Muslim community. For the first time in anyone's memory, many Muslim leaders came together to express anger against Pakistan, where the attackers were said to have been trained. Muslims in Mumbai even refused to bury the gunmen, nine of whom died in the attacks. The backlash was also directed at extremists within the Muslim community.
"Many Muslims were very worried that we would be attacked after the siege of Mumbai," Rubina said. "We stayed at home, closed our shops. But after watching the Muslims of Mumbai protest in the streets, some here found the courage to protest against the terrorists and explain where we stood."
The anti-extremist movement spread to other Indian cities with large Muslim populations, including Ahmedabad. Rubina and other women in her neighborhood saw it as an opportunity to speak out against extremism at a time when fatwas, or religious decrees, against women were on the rise.
"Why do Muslim woman have to be so docile and submissive?" asked Khan, the social worker, who opened a chapter of a national Muslim women's group just down the street from Rubina's house. "Everyone is complaining about terrorists. This is the moment for Muslim women to speak up about our rights, too."
The women's group filed, and later won, a lawsuit against the city accusing it of failing to provide electricity, water, and sewage and trash services in Muslim communities.
Emboldened by that success, Rubina soon began studying health issues as part of a government campaign to help young mothers in the neighborhood care for sick children, offering health tips and medicine.
"Many families here still think it's not safe for a girl to be out in offices or on the roads," she said one recent day, braiding her long hair and loading her briefcase with notes about neighbors in need.
She walked past the mosque where her brother prayed. Nearby, children played hopscotch over open sewers clogged with plastic bags and crushed soda cans. She paused and tried to remember what her life had been like, how safe she had felt before the riots. Now 22, she wondered whether her life would have been different.
"Would we have a better life?" she asked. "Would Muslims have a better life?"
Just weeks ago, Rubina married the hotel manager. "My husband and his family will let me work. That is what's important," she said. "I don't want to sit home. There is a lot of work to do in the community. We are still recovering."
Her brother attended the wedding ceremony and praised her work as a health activist, one of the few times he has let on that he was proud of her.
Rubina glowed in a red sari, her hands stained with henna. She danced with the women in a midnight celebration at her home. And her father and brother danced in a nearby room.
Muslim Women Gain Higher Profile in U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/middleeast/28iht-muslim28.html) By BRIAN KNOWLTON | New York Times
dresses The summer created interesting
gapala
06-05 08:28 PM
look at this thread.. counterproductive higher taxes to sustain the government spending on food, shelter and medical care.... means more technology job outsourcing..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=345957#post345957
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=345957#post345957
more...
makeup The Summer and Winter Garden
nogc_noproblem
08-07 02:06 PM
Instructions: Just read the sentence straight through quickly without really thinking about it.
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
Amazing, isn't it?
girlfriend As Christmas and the summer
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
hairstyles defeat Brock Lesnar 1 of 3
chintu25
08-28 09:42 AM
Two immigrants have just arrived in the United States and one says to the other, I hear that the people of this country actually eat dogs.�
�That�s odd,� her companion replies, �but if we are going to live in America, we might as well do as the Americans do.�
Nodding emphatically, one of the immigrants points to a hot dog vendor, and they both walk toward the cart. �Two dogs, please,� she says.
The vendor is only too pleased to oblige, wraps both hot dogs in foil and hands them over the counter. Excited, the companions hurry to a bench and begin to unwrap their �dogs.�
One of them opens the foil and begins to blush. Staring at it for a moment, she turns to her friend and whispers cautiously, �What part did you get?�
;)
�That�s odd,� her companion replies, �but if we are going to live in America, we might as well do as the Americans do.�
Nodding emphatically, one of the immigrants points to a hot dog vendor, and they both walk toward the cart. �Two dogs, please,� she says.
The vendor is only too pleased to oblige, wraps both hot dogs in foil and hands them over the counter. Excited, the companions hurry to a bench and begin to unwrap their �dogs.�
One of them opens the foil and begins to blush. Staring at it for a moment, she turns to her friend and whispers cautiously, �What part did you get?�
;)
nojoke
04-06 04:00 PM
It was crazy till last year. Things started going south from this year begining. I am seeing foreclosures and auctions here in bay area. There are price reductions of 100K in the mls listings. This is just starting. It is a matter of time. Some more quotes...
-----------------------------------
“Bay Area home sales have plummeted to their lowest level in two decades, making the wait between commission checks unbearable for many agents. Bonnie Stevens, an agent in Pleasanton, began her real estate career in 1995, at the end of the market’s last down cycle.”
“‘This is actually worse than 1995. There are agents in my office who have been in the business for 30 years telling me that this is the worst they’ve seen,’ she said.”
“During her 13 years as an agent, a good year for Stevens has meant selling 15 to 18 homes. So far this year, she’s sold only one.”
-----------------------------------
“Bay Area home sales have plummeted to their lowest level in two decades, making the wait between commission checks unbearable for many agents. Bonnie Stevens, an agent in Pleasanton, began her real estate career in 1995, at the end of the market’s last down cycle.”
“‘This is actually worse than 1995. There are agents in my office who have been in the business for 30 years telling me that this is the worst they’ve seen,’ she said.”
“During her 13 years as an agent, a good year for Stevens has meant selling 15 to 18 homes. So far this year, she’s sold only one.”
thakurrajiv
04-06 09:35 AM
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier t his decade.
Jung.lee very good second post from you. People still think it is very easy to keep on holding onto your home for long time till turn around happens.
But life events can cause you to sell like
1. Job loss and not able to find job in the same area till back up money runs out.
2. Kids grow up and you need to pay for college and you have little saving as you are holding to see turn around
3. Hope not but some medical emergency.
There can be many more situations. Do you know what people are currently doing in these situation ?
Get money from Home equity ATM machine !!
Personally I will be scared to buy now as my payment will be more than 50% of my salary and any of above situations will cause me to sell.
The prices have to become saner ....
This is very different from anything we have seen. Wall street will change, money will be harder to come by.
I think time to say " Welcome savings again ". Long term very good for US as country.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier t his decade.
Jung.lee very good second post from you. People still think it is very easy to keep on holding onto your home for long time till turn around happens.
But life events can cause you to sell like
1. Job loss and not able to find job in the same area till back up money runs out.
2. Kids grow up and you need to pay for college and you have little saving as you are holding to see turn around
3. Hope not but some medical emergency.
There can be many more situations. Do you know what people are currently doing in these situation ?
Get money from Home equity ATM machine !!
Personally I will be scared to buy now as my payment will be more than 50% of my salary and any of above situations will cause me to sell.
The prices have to become saner ....
This is very different from anything we have seen. Wall street will change, money will be harder to come by.
I think time to say " Welcome savings again ". Long term very good for US as country.
No comments:
Post a Comment