jonty_11
09-29 03:09 PM
Precisely my point! Majority of EB immigrants are pro-Democratic party and possible future contributors to Obama 2012 campaign.
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
wallpaper bsl printable signs and
sanju
05-16 10:47 AM
:p :p I like this most. Lets move on...
It appears that some of us are mad at our employers and there can be several reasons –
We think we are “high-skilled” and deserve more even though we are spending most of our time at work on IV forums
We think our employer is taking advantage of our situation and if we had green cards we would have taken over the crown from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet
And so on….
For some of these reason, we are faulting everybody around us, our employer, companies not our employers, consulting companies/body shopper, other H-1B applicants, L-1 applicants, people who come on B-1, companies like TCS/INFY/SIFY etc. And there seem to be this idea that if a bill is passed to harm consulting companies or body shoppers or companies like TCS/INFY/SIFY, then somehow that is my gain because I am suffering because of these guys. Consistently, I have seen this argument on the forums, but somehow I am not convinced that these guys have to lose something before I could get what I want.
IEEE-USA, Ron Hira et al has problems with us if educated/skilled/talented people come here on H-1/L-1. So that’s why they oppose any increase in H-1. These guys have a problem with us if we apply for green card and that is why they did not include a single provision in Durbin-Grassley bill to fix the green card backlogs. In fact they are making sure that people waiting for green card will have to somehow leave the country. These same guys at IEEE-USA have a problem if we choose to go back to wherever we came from and we decide not apply for green cards. In this scenario they say that we are promoting outsourcing because we are returning to the country we came from. And if we never ever chose to come here at all, these guys simple say that we are still taking their jobs because we are the people on the receiving end of the outsourcing. So either way you look at it, these guys are simply out there to screw us. The bad thing is they are organized and we are not. And the worst thing is we have guys like Senthil1 on this forum who thinks that by some how causing harm to consulting companies/body shopper/companies like tcs, infy etc we are making up for our delays in the green cards. And I just find this argument very very bizarre. No offense to anyone, but just wanted to clearly say that Durbin-Grassley bill is not designed or intended to help anybody on H-1/L-1/green card applicant, directly and indirectly. In fact, in the long term, I do not know who is getting the benefit from Durbin-Grassley bill other than the BPO companies in the other countries.
It appears that some of us are mad at our employers and there can be several reasons –
We think we are “high-skilled” and deserve more even though we are spending most of our time at work on IV forums
We think our employer is taking advantage of our situation and if we had green cards we would have taken over the crown from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet
And so on….
For some of these reason, we are faulting everybody around us, our employer, companies not our employers, consulting companies/body shopper, other H-1B applicants, L-1 applicants, people who come on B-1, companies like TCS/INFY/SIFY etc. And there seem to be this idea that if a bill is passed to harm consulting companies or body shoppers or companies like TCS/INFY/SIFY, then somehow that is my gain because I am suffering because of these guys. Consistently, I have seen this argument on the forums, but somehow I am not convinced that these guys have to lose something before I could get what I want.
IEEE-USA, Ron Hira et al has problems with us if educated/skilled/talented people come here on H-1/L-1. So that’s why they oppose any increase in H-1. These guys have a problem with us if we apply for green card and that is why they did not include a single provision in Durbin-Grassley bill to fix the green card backlogs. In fact they are making sure that people waiting for green card will have to somehow leave the country. These same guys at IEEE-USA have a problem if we choose to go back to wherever we came from and we decide not apply for green cards. In this scenario they say that we are promoting outsourcing because we are returning to the country we came from. And if we never ever chose to come here at all, these guys simple say that we are still taking their jobs because we are the people on the receiving end of the outsourcing. So either way you look at it, these guys are simply out there to screw us. The bad thing is they are organized and we are not. And the worst thing is we have guys like Senthil1 on this forum who thinks that by some how causing harm to consulting companies/body shopper/companies like tcs, infy etc we are making up for our delays in the green cards. And I just find this argument very very bizarre. No offense to anyone, but just wanted to clearly say that Durbin-Grassley bill is not designed or intended to help anybody on H-1/L-1/green card applicant, directly and indirectly. In fact, in the long term, I do not know who is getting the benefit from Durbin-Grassley bill other than the BPO companies in the other countries.
Macaca
02-28 09:39 AM
Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28thu2.html?ref=opinion) NYT Editorial, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
Anxiety is palpable in the House as lawmakers try to wriggle out of a vote on whether to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. Despite last-minute cries of alarm and resistance from both sides of the aisle, the public is counting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand fast and steer this overdue dose of ethics reform to passage.
The office would have six professionals, appointed by the two party leaders, charged with the task of screening complaints of misbehavior for possible referral to the House ethics committee for fuller inquiry. Opponents from both parties openly worry that partisan rivals would hand over false complaints and that any investigation � including those that don�t result in a referral � could threaten their careers.
Fears of any runaway inquisition can be more than negated by the appointment of blue-ribbon, nonpartisan professionals. Even now, those fears are being exploited by some Republicans. According to National Journal�s Congress Daily, Republican staffers have been threatening to use the office to target a hit list of Democrats this fall. This would be a new low in tooth-and-claw partisanship, and cooler heads had better prevail in the caucus.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle � and most recent campaign promises � as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples� House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff � the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members � as a prevote mantra.
Or they could chant the name Rick Renzi, the House member indicted on 35 counts of fraud, money laundering and extortion for allegedly netting $700,000 in a political land scheme. He joins a half-dozen other members plus staffers already brought down while the House ethics committee looked the other way.
Critics have compromised the measure enough by stripping subpoena power from the proposed integrity office. However anxious, the House can�t duck cleaning up its ethics act. Lawmakers may even find doing the right thing an impressive accomplishment to present to the voters back home.
Louisiana Governor Pierces Business as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html) By ADAM NOSSITER | NYT, Feb 28
2011 I think the cartoon was highly
NKR
04-14 11:39 AM
Most of the posts here are not relevant to the original topic of the thread � buying a home when 485 is pending.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
I cannot agree more. I have been trying to drill this into some peoples brain but they are so adamant on renting and has made this thread into a rent vs buy argument. I finally gave up. I am not saying that this is the right time to buy. Fast forward 2 or 2+ years, lets assume the market is good. Then when it comes to rent vs buy I advocate buying a house.
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
I cannot agree more. I have been trying to drill this into some peoples brain but they are so adamant on renting and has made this thread into a rent vs buy argument. I finally gave up. I am not saying that this is the right time to buy. Fast forward 2 or 2+ years, lets assume the market is good. Then when it comes to rent vs buy I advocate buying a house.
Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.
more...
gimme_GC2006
03-24 09:37 AM
hehehe..
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
nixstor
03-23 12:36 AM
If you want to buy a home after you get your green card, mostly you will get after your retirement.
I don't want to feel "my home" when I am 68 and after my kids are out on their own. So I decided, dump the H1B, H4, 485, 131, 761, 797, 999, 888, I94, EAD, AP... AAD, CCD etc crap in trash, and bought the home.
I am happy. Even if I am asked to leave the country tomorrow, I just lock the door, throw the keys in trash and take off.
who cares when life matters.
First sounded funny, then it made helluva sense.
I don't want to feel "my home" when I am 68 and after my kids are out on their own. So I decided, dump the H1B, H4, 485, 131, 761, 797, 999, 888, I94, EAD, AP... AAD, CCD etc crap in trash, and bought the home.
I am happy. Even if I am asked to leave the country tomorrow, I just lock the door, throw the keys in trash and take off.
who cares when life matters.
First sounded funny, then it made helluva sense.
more...
sledge_hammer
06-23 12:38 PM
I don't believe the housing market slump will last more than 3 years!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The children of baby boomers will eventually resuscitate the pummeled U.S. housing market, Harvard University said on Monday, but in the meantime, limits on income and credit are sustaining the three-year bust.
The highest unemployment in almost 26 years, record foreclosures and rigid lending threaten to overcome emerging home sales progress despite unprecedented efforts by the Obama administration, Harvard's State of the Nation's Housing 2009 report said.
Echo boomers, the children of the post-World War Two baby boomer generation, offer a massive source of support for housing, the study said. The generation is entering the peak home buying and renting ages of 25 to 44 and numbers over five million people more than did their parents' record-sized group in the 1970s.
"Echo boomers are larger than the baby boomer population. Couple that with immigration and you have the seeds, the possibility of a housing recovery," Nicolas Retsinas, director of Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, said in an interview.
The group will bolster demand for the next 10 years and beyond, supporting the sagging housing market even if immigration drops, the study said.
The challenges are myriad, however, said Retsinas, a widely followed housing industry expert and former senior official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
"We have to find a way to stabilize housing finance in this country," he said.
A healthy housing market is integral to a growing economy. In the current cycle, the housing crash has propelled the economy into its longest recession since the Great Depression. Jobs lost to the recession have derailed any housing recovery.
"Seedlings of the housing recovery have to come through this thicket of job losses and foreclosures," Retsinas said. "The housing market has not seen these challenges for over 60 years."
Mortgage rates have risen from all-time lows in the past two months despite massive government steps to keep them down.
Foreclosures escalate as federal efforts to keep borrowers in their houses cannot keep pace with loan failures caused by job losses or punishing home price erosion.
THIN SILVER LININGS
Home sales have started to pick up, thanks mostly to a first-time buyer tax credit this year of up to $8,000 and demand for foreclosure properties at bargain-basement prices.
"While we do see some signs of stabilization, you can barely see those silver linings," Retsinas said.
The lending pendulum swung vastly after the unsustainable five-year record home price surge early this decade. Lenders clamped down after lax conditions spawned record home sales and then fueled the torrent of foreclosures.
Now, more than 85 percent of mortgage loans are created through the government and its agencies. Private lending companies either shut down or slammed on the credit brakes to prevent a repeat of major losses on flawed loans.
What happens to mortgage availability currently rests in the hands of the federal government, the report said.
But Retsinas noted: "Eventually you want a sustainable credit system, and that has to include private capital."
The share of minority households, hurt most in the housing crisis, will rise to 35 percent in 2020 from 29 percent in 2005, the study projected. Those households typically have lower average incomes and wealth, and higher unemployment.
In Cleveland, Boston and Washington, DC, price declines at the low end of the market through December were more than twice those at the high end in percentage terms, while in San Francisco they were nearly three times greater.
Real median household incomes in all age groups under 55 have not risen since 2000, the Harvard study said. For the first time in at least 40 years, there is a chance that median household income will end the decade lower than where it started.
The severity of the recession could hold incomes down for years.
"The number of households that were severely cost-burdened -- people paying over 50 percent of their income for housing -- has grown dramatically," Retsinas said. The number spiked by 30 percent to 17.9 million between 2001 and 2007, the most recent data available.
"The reality is that it's not just the cost of a house, but it's how much you make," he said. "Of course as people struggle with their jobs, as they lose that second job, they lose that overtime, their income drops make it more difficult to pay."
Echo boomers will expand the number of needed housing units. But they also likely will enter the housing market with lower real incomes than people the same age did a decade ago, the study said.
"While fundamentally we see what could be the foundation for long-term recovery, we still have to get through today's challenges," said Retsinas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The children of baby boomers will eventually resuscitate the pummeled U.S. housing market, Harvard University said on Monday, but in the meantime, limits on income and credit are sustaining the three-year bust.
The highest unemployment in almost 26 years, record foreclosures and rigid lending threaten to overcome emerging home sales progress despite unprecedented efforts by the Obama administration, Harvard's State of the Nation's Housing 2009 report said.
Echo boomers, the children of the post-World War Two baby boomer generation, offer a massive source of support for housing, the study said. The generation is entering the peak home buying and renting ages of 25 to 44 and numbers over five million people more than did their parents' record-sized group in the 1970s.
"Echo boomers are larger than the baby boomer population. Couple that with immigration and you have the seeds, the possibility of a housing recovery," Nicolas Retsinas, director of Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, said in an interview.
The group will bolster demand for the next 10 years and beyond, supporting the sagging housing market even if immigration drops, the study said.
The challenges are myriad, however, said Retsinas, a widely followed housing industry expert and former senior official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
"We have to find a way to stabilize housing finance in this country," he said.
A healthy housing market is integral to a growing economy. In the current cycle, the housing crash has propelled the economy into its longest recession since the Great Depression. Jobs lost to the recession have derailed any housing recovery.
"Seedlings of the housing recovery have to come through this thicket of job losses and foreclosures," Retsinas said. "The housing market has not seen these challenges for over 60 years."
Mortgage rates have risen from all-time lows in the past two months despite massive government steps to keep them down.
Foreclosures escalate as federal efforts to keep borrowers in their houses cannot keep pace with loan failures caused by job losses or punishing home price erosion.
THIN SILVER LININGS
Home sales have started to pick up, thanks mostly to a first-time buyer tax credit this year of up to $8,000 and demand for foreclosure properties at bargain-basement prices.
"While we do see some signs of stabilization, you can barely see those silver linings," Retsinas said.
The lending pendulum swung vastly after the unsustainable five-year record home price surge early this decade. Lenders clamped down after lax conditions spawned record home sales and then fueled the torrent of foreclosures.
Now, more than 85 percent of mortgage loans are created through the government and its agencies. Private lending companies either shut down or slammed on the credit brakes to prevent a repeat of major losses on flawed loans.
What happens to mortgage availability currently rests in the hands of the federal government, the report said.
But Retsinas noted: "Eventually you want a sustainable credit system, and that has to include private capital."
The share of minority households, hurt most in the housing crisis, will rise to 35 percent in 2020 from 29 percent in 2005, the study projected. Those households typically have lower average incomes and wealth, and higher unemployment.
In Cleveland, Boston and Washington, DC, price declines at the low end of the market through December were more than twice those at the high end in percentage terms, while in San Francisco they were nearly three times greater.
Real median household incomes in all age groups under 55 have not risen since 2000, the Harvard study said. For the first time in at least 40 years, there is a chance that median household income will end the decade lower than where it started.
The severity of the recession could hold incomes down for years.
"The number of households that were severely cost-burdened -- people paying over 50 percent of their income for housing -- has grown dramatically," Retsinas said. The number spiked by 30 percent to 17.9 million between 2001 and 2007, the most recent data available.
"The reality is that it's not just the cost of a house, but it's how much you make," he said. "Of course as people struggle with their jobs, as they lose that second job, they lose that overtime, their income drops make it more difficult to pay."
Echo boomers will expand the number of needed housing units. But they also likely will enter the housing market with lower real incomes than people the same age did a decade ago, the study said.
"While fundamentally we see what could be the foundation for long-term recovery, we still have to get through today's challenges," said Retsinas.
2010 raise money This photo jan
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:41 PM
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
more...
pointlesswait
08-05 10:38 AM
here is another point:
if you want to remain a slave to the GC process and ristrict your career by staying with a company..just because you dont want to lose your PD...then..god save u and ur future..
the person who ports his PS was already in the line..he reclaimed his rightful place after going thru the due deligence...of restarting his GC process...in fact ppl.
i am sure ..after oct they will offer some relief to Eb3 category...
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
Why did they not take the employer to court? Why make the EB2 line suffer for these employer's faults?
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
if you want to remain a slave to the GC process and ristrict your career by staying with a company..just because you dont want to lose your PD...then..god save u and ur future..
the person who ports his PS was already in the line..he reclaimed his rightful place after going thru the due deligence...of restarting his GC process...in fact ppl.
i am sure ..after oct they will offer some relief to Eb3 category...
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
Why did they not take the employer to court? Why make the EB2 line suffer for these employer's faults?
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
hair girlfriend emo guys cartoon
gc28262
03-24 03:16 PM
I was one of you and I mainly deal with many of you guys. Unfortunately, people want to come into this country in many different ways and just because we want to; doesn't mean they are going to let us.
btw; see --------------------------------for my comments.
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
btw; see --------------------------------for my comments.
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
more...
485Mbe4001
06-05 06:23 PM
The biggest mistake one can make is to consider your house as an investment option. Your example is good when you have enough equity and the cost of your house increases from 270k. factor in annual HOA, pmi, maintenance ect and the fact that when you sell you will have to pay ~6% for broker comission. People who were prudent or had the ability to buy during 1999-2003 are doing good so far.
As for buying in the current market...as they say location...location...location
here is a slightly technical article about the current interest rate, FC and impact on housing in San Diego.
http://www.fieldcheckgroup.com/2009/06/04/6-5-beware-real-estate-false-bottoms/
rent Vs own calculator after factoring in annual home expenses..
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/calculator/
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
As for buying in the current market...as they say location...location...location
here is a slightly technical article about the current interest rate, FC and impact on housing in San Diego.
http://www.fieldcheckgroup.com/2009/06/04/6-5-beware-real-estate-false-bottoms/
rent Vs own calculator after factoring in annual home expenses..
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/calculator/
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
hot buyers their money back
nojoke
04-06 04:50 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
I hope this is not a joke. You have any idea what kind of downturn we will be facing? Why did Fed jump in to bail out Bear Stearns against all the criticism? What they did is considered illegal by many. But still they did it anyway. Because the Government is very afraid of this shaky economy. We were just few steps away from bank runs.
My friend bought house in Atlanta and within 3 months the builder sold the same model houses for 100k less. We are going to see a 30% to 50% reduction depending on the area.
People who wanted to convince themselves said it will not happen in california. As things started unfolding, they said it will not happen in Bay area. Then they said it will not happen in San Jose and Santa Clara. Now they are saying not in their block.
If you still think a good school will protect your house price, go ahead and catch the falling knife. To give you some idea of what people here are thinking -------------
“Sinclair: ‘But the prices kept going up. At one time, our house was worth over $600,000. In fact, a model just like this they were asking $699,000 — and now things have entirely collapsed.”
“A similar house down the street is already in foreclosure and the bank is entertaining offers for under $200,000.”
“The Sinclairs stopped paying their mortgage in October when the payment jumped from $3,000 a month to $4,000. Now they’re basically squatting in their own home, living there for free. Sinclair: ‘We had to start making some hard choices, which included going into foreclosure on our house and kind of starting again.’”
“Sinclair: ‘We would do it if the equity was there, but in a case where we’re already so behind… Imagine that for five years, say, we’re gonna pay four grand a month and then we’re just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we’re throwing away money.’”
--------------------------------
They are just walking away from their house because they see that their house value is going down. This all will feedback and cause further decline in the prices. Don't think that the prices will be back in 5 years. For someone who bought a house in 1989, it took 8 years to 9 years to get back to their purchase price. This time it will be worse.
Guys, people are talking about Depression and you guys want to buy house in a good school district. These FB(search google what it means), are waiting for some greater fool than themselves to unload their burden. This is why you will be called "greater fool"
If you want to loose your 200K in 2 years, go ahead. It is your money. Don't tell that you weren't warned, like all these mortgage companies and banks who are now saying - "who would have thought it would get this worse".
Land is plentiful in california and NJ. There are building restrictions artificially imposed to keep the prices high. But this is past. No realtors are saying "we are not making any more land" these days. I have been following the housing blogs and they are laughing at Indians who are buying here in Bay area. Do some research before spewing the realtor propaganda and don't compare situation in India with US. Sorry for the rant. I am doing this with good intention to save atleast some of you guys.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
I hope this is not a joke. You have any idea what kind of downturn we will be facing? Why did Fed jump in to bail out Bear Stearns against all the criticism? What they did is considered illegal by many. But still they did it anyway. Because the Government is very afraid of this shaky economy. We were just few steps away from bank runs.
My friend bought house in Atlanta and within 3 months the builder sold the same model houses for 100k less. We are going to see a 30% to 50% reduction depending on the area.
People who wanted to convince themselves said it will not happen in california. As things started unfolding, they said it will not happen in Bay area. Then they said it will not happen in San Jose and Santa Clara. Now they are saying not in their block.
If you still think a good school will protect your house price, go ahead and catch the falling knife. To give you some idea of what people here are thinking -------------
“Sinclair: ‘But the prices kept going up. At one time, our house was worth over $600,000. In fact, a model just like this they were asking $699,000 — and now things have entirely collapsed.”
“A similar house down the street is already in foreclosure and the bank is entertaining offers for under $200,000.”
“The Sinclairs stopped paying their mortgage in October when the payment jumped from $3,000 a month to $4,000. Now they’re basically squatting in their own home, living there for free. Sinclair: ‘We had to start making some hard choices, which included going into foreclosure on our house and kind of starting again.’”
“Sinclair: ‘We would do it if the equity was there, but in a case where we’re already so behind… Imagine that for five years, say, we’re gonna pay four grand a month and then we’re just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we’re throwing away money.’”
--------------------------------
They are just walking away from their house because they see that their house value is going down. This all will feedback and cause further decline in the prices. Don't think that the prices will be back in 5 years. For someone who bought a house in 1989, it took 8 years to 9 years to get back to their purchase price. This time it will be worse.
Guys, people are talking about Depression and you guys want to buy house in a good school district. These FB(search google what it means), are waiting for some greater fool than themselves to unload their burden. This is why you will be called "greater fool"
If you want to loose your 200K in 2 years, go ahead. It is your money. Don't tell that you weren't warned, like all these mortgage companies and banks who are now saying - "who would have thought it would get this worse".
Land is plentiful in california and NJ. There are building restrictions artificially imposed to keep the prices high. But this is past. No realtors are saying "we are not making any more land" these days. I have been following the housing blogs and they are laughing at Indians who are buying here in Bay area. Do some research before spewing the realtor propaganda and don't compare situation in India with US. Sorry for the rant. I am doing this with good intention to save atleast some of you guys.
more...
house Sign In or Register
unitednations
08-14 09:12 PM
Sorry to post in this thread, but I was wondering if United Nations would be kind enough to answer two questions for me (well, actually one is from my colleague). They are kind of generic so it might help other people too, I hope. I posted this on other threads but I havent gotten any responses for the longest time, so Im posting here. Very sorry to those who are following this thread for the original topic.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
Where they ask for her name; then on a separate piece of paper she should explain the different names. Isn't much of a problem.
Surprisingly; people in the situation where both spouses have 140's pending/approved have opted to file four 485's. My experience is that just about everyone has chosen this option.
Only risk is that somehow when you file multiple 485 filings; uscis opens up two different alien numbers for you. Once they figure it out then they have to consolidate your files which may take some additional time. However; this is very rare that this happens because there is enough detail that a person puts on the g-325a that uscis systems would be able to detect that a person has multiple filings and they won't create a second alien number (file).
Biggest advantage:
One of the spouses 140 gets denied/revoked and can't use portability.
One of the spouses gets stuck in name check and other spouse can't get approved until primary gets cleared through name check.
Divorce/separation is an issue (surprisingly this comes up quite often where in some dispute one of the spouses wants to cancel others greencard....happens more often then people think).
One of the spouses actually pass away (i know of a situation such as this and the other spouse left the country).
Other then it costing some more money; I don't see much of a risk.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
Where they ask for her name; then on a separate piece of paper she should explain the different names. Isn't much of a problem.
Surprisingly; people in the situation where both spouses have 140's pending/approved have opted to file four 485's. My experience is that just about everyone has chosen this option.
Only risk is that somehow when you file multiple 485 filings; uscis opens up two different alien numbers for you. Once they figure it out then they have to consolidate your files which may take some additional time. However; this is very rare that this happens because there is enough detail that a person puts on the g-325a that uscis systems would be able to detect that a person has multiple filings and they won't create a second alien number (file).
Biggest advantage:
One of the spouses 140 gets denied/revoked and can't use portability.
One of the spouses gets stuck in name check and other spouse can't get approved until primary gets cleared through name check.
Divorce/separation is an issue (surprisingly this comes up quite often where in some dispute one of the spouses wants to cancel others greencard....happens more often then people think).
One of the spouses actually pass away (i know of a situation such as this and the other spouse left the country).
Other then it costing some more money; I don't see much of a risk.
tattoo Welcome to the Best of Money
rsdang
08-29 11:52 AM
The Indian Chief proclaims, "So, you are the great Lone Ranger. In honor of the Harvest Festival, you will be executed in three days. But, before I kill you, I will grant you three requests
What is your first request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse."
The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver's ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back.
As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night. !
The next morning the Indian Chief admits he's impressed. "You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?"
The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse's ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon.
Later that evening, to the Chief's surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night.
The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. ! "You are indeed a man of many talents but I still kill you tomorrow. "What is your last request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse....alone."
The Chief is curious but he agrees and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger's tent.
Once they're alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, ; "Listen very carefully you dumb ass horse. For the last time . . . BRING POSSEE".
What is your first request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse."
The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver's ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back.
As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night. !
The next morning the Indian Chief admits he's impressed. "You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?"
The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse's ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon.
Later that evening, to the Chief's surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night.
The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. ! "You are indeed a man of many talents but I still kill you tomorrow. "What is your last request?"
The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse....alone."
The Chief is curious but he agrees and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger's tent.
Once they're alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, ; "Listen very carefully you dumb ass horse. For the last time . . . BRING POSSEE".
more...
pictures Cartoon 4
sanju
05-17 01:50 PM
Of course I don't work for a consulting company. And if I did I wouldn't be here UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
To start with, you are not the only one with a full time job in America. Just so that you know I do FULL-TIME job. But I take no pride in bashing people who are not exactly the same as I am. I think you are doing that well and one fool is more than many.
BTW, each consultant is also full time employee with some company. And stop calling "ILLEGAL" just becuase you can. Apply some logic to your agruments. Is Accenture, KPMG, D&T, Oracle consulting, IBm consulting body shops??? Just want to understand your defination of body shops
UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
H-1B is also allowed for part times.
SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
Also, some people are killing others by causing accidents when driving cars. Do we ban ALL cars? Likewise, some people are not following the law completely, should all H-1Bs be banned??? Also, Breaking a law doesn't necessarily means CRIME. Speeding is breaking the law, but it is NOT a crime.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
To start with, you are not the only one with a full time job in America. Just so that you know I do FULL-TIME job. But I take no pride in bashing people who are not exactly the same as I am. I think you are doing that well and one fool is more than many.
BTW, each consultant is also full time employee with some company. And stop calling "ILLEGAL" just becuase you can. Apply some logic to your agruments. Is Accenture, KPMG, D&T, Oracle consulting, IBm consulting body shops??? Just want to understand your defination of body shops
UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
H-1B is also allowed for part times.
SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
Also, some people are killing others by causing accidents when driving cars. Do we ban ALL cars? Likewise, some people are not following the law completely, should all H-1Bs be banned??? Also, Breaking a law doesn't necessarily means CRIME. Speeding is breaking the law, but it is NOT a crime.
dresses Clip art, sign black stack
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
more...
makeup Ron Paul has more money than
nojoke
04-07 10:40 PM
exactly ..and housing is worse then stocks i.e. it takes longer to recover. for lot of people like me ..it definitely makes sense to rent. 3 of my close friends are literally cursing their decision to buy (pressure from spouse and trying to keep up with others) ,.. there is one other major point for people on EAD. once you get a GC you may get a super duper job offer somewhere ..if you are stuck in a house then you are severly handicapped by that house (i.e. you cannot relocate easily).
btw even the realtors are saying that it will be atleast end 2009 before any possible housing recovery (if realtors say end 2009 then it means atleast 2010 before price decline stops).
Desis who come here are all engineers and well educated. I couldn't believe that some of them are falling for the realtor tricks. I know someone who last year paid 200K more on an advertised price of 1million. He said the realtor told him that there was bidding war and he kept rising it and eventually got the house for 1.2million. What stupidity. Doesn't he know about phantom bids that realtors use to jack up the price.:( This is last year end when housing here started crashing. I asked him how he is going to pay when his arm resets. He says he will refinance. God save him.
btw even the realtors are saying that it will be atleast end 2009 before any possible housing recovery (if realtors say end 2009 then it means atleast 2010 before price decline stops).
Desis who come here are all engineers and well educated. I couldn't believe that some of them are falling for the realtor tricks. I know someone who last year paid 200K more on an advertised price of 1million. He said the realtor told him that there was bidding war and he kept rising it and eventually got the house for 1.2million. What stupidity. Doesn't he know about phantom bids that realtors use to jack up the price.:( This is last year end when housing here started crashing. I asked him how he is going to pay when his arm resets. He says he will refinance. God save him.
girlfriend Happy Money Cartoon Lady
Macaca
08-07 07:38 PM
Tougher Rules Change Game for Lobbyists (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK New York Times, August 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 � H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.
The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new �temptation rules.� Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.
And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker�s staff.
�You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,� Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. �These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, each other�young people with active social lives.�
The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street. It comes amid signs that federal prosecutors are taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases � including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes.
By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists� campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements � in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills � make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists� influence.
�It will be easier to connect dots,� said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. �Even if there shouldn�t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.�
Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. �It should send shivers down lobbyists� spines,� Mr. Brand said. �It is a minefield now.�
These are hardly the first restrictions, of course. Internal rules already barred lawmakers or senior staff members from accepting a gift or a meal worth more than $50 from a lobbyist. But the rules were rarely, if ever, enforced and did not govern lobbyists.
President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners.
Lobbying firms are racing to train employees in the new rules. One firm, fearful that prosecutors might try to use the expanded disclosures to link official actions to campaign contributions, has sent letters to its clients advising them how to respond if a lawmaker brings up fund-raising in a conversation about policy or procurements. �We would love to have this conversation, but it would have to be at another time� is the short answer.
One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions.
Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of �only nominal value.� The House ethics committee guidelines suggest �light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,� a standard that is known as �the toothpick test.�
The firm also advised a client distributing flashlights on Capitol Hill � to promote government openness � to make sure not only that they cost less than $10 each but also that they looked cheap, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And the �staff briefing� � in which a lobbyist enticed Congressional staff members to hear a talk about some dry legislative concern by offering pizza � has become extinct. No one will come without the free food.
Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.
�All those people who grew up in the system � who aren�t evil-doers, just good people � used to be able to entertain and have fun,� lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.
Jan Baran, a longtime Republican lawyer whose clients include lobbyists, said: �There is a great deal of resentment. It�s �the devil made me do it,� and the devil this time happens to be lobbyists. They get tarred with corruption, and the next day they get mail from all the same lawmakers who are blaming lobbyists saying, �I have a fund-raiser next week � don�t forget to contribute!� �
Many lobbyists say the rules pose dilemmas. Blocking them from buying dinners or trips for lawmakers, lobbyists say, will only force them to spend more time and money at political fund-raisers to get the same access.
For lawmakers, one of the most contentious elements of the package is the requirement that candidates disclose the names of federally registered lobbyists who solicit and �bundle� contributions. But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.
�That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,� Lawrence O�Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. �It could be perceived as bragging rights.�
Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors� new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.
For lobbyists � who live at the nexus of contributions and favors � it is an alarming trend. �They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,� one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.
Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, �It is a lose-lose situation,� said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.
A self-described �earmarks guy� who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.
�It is a road map that says, �Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,� � he said.
Some loopholes exist. At the annual Aerospace Industries Association trade show in Paris last month, for example, military contractors treated a gaggle of senators to luxurious receptions at galleries, parks and hotels � all permitted under an exception for �widely attended events.�
But John W. Douglass, the group�s president, said the new rules were putting a damper on such events. �Who wants to go to a hot, crowded cocktail party,� Mr. Douglass said, �and have to worry every time the guy brings the hors d�oeuvres tray up, �Should I do this or not?� �
Still, some lobbyists and lawyers wondered privately how long the new carefulness would last.
At the Capital Grille the evening after final passage of the new lobbying bill, private wine lockers by the door still bore the names of several prominent lobbyists. Two mounted stag heads were the only sentries policing the dimly lit bar. Shaking a Belvedere Vodka martini for a lone defense contractor, a bartender leaned in to offer his thoughts.
�What happens at the Capital Grille,� the bartender said, �stays at the Capital Grille.�
Fundraisers Tap Those Who Can't Say No (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601403.html) 'Bundlers' Look to Associates, Employees for Campaign Cash By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
Draining the 'Swamp' Is Not So Easy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601298.html) Skeptics Question Bite of Ethics Rules By Elizabeth Williamson Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 � H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.
The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new �temptation rules.� Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.
And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker�s staff.
�You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,� Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. �These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, each other�young people with active social lives.�
The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street. It comes amid signs that federal prosecutors are taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases � including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes.
By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists� campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements � in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills � make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists� influence.
�It will be easier to connect dots,� said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. �Even if there shouldn�t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.�
Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. �It should send shivers down lobbyists� spines,� Mr. Brand said. �It is a minefield now.�
These are hardly the first restrictions, of course. Internal rules already barred lawmakers or senior staff members from accepting a gift or a meal worth more than $50 from a lobbyist. But the rules were rarely, if ever, enforced and did not govern lobbyists.
President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners.
Lobbying firms are racing to train employees in the new rules. One firm, fearful that prosecutors might try to use the expanded disclosures to link official actions to campaign contributions, has sent letters to its clients advising them how to respond if a lawmaker brings up fund-raising in a conversation about policy or procurements. �We would love to have this conversation, but it would have to be at another time� is the short answer.
One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions.
Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of �only nominal value.� The House ethics committee guidelines suggest �light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,� a standard that is known as �the toothpick test.�
The firm also advised a client distributing flashlights on Capitol Hill � to promote government openness � to make sure not only that they cost less than $10 each but also that they looked cheap, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And the �staff briefing� � in which a lobbyist enticed Congressional staff members to hear a talk about some dry legislative concern by offering pizza � has become extinct. No one will come without the free food.
Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.
�All those people who grew up in the system � who aren�t evil-doers, just good people � used to be able to entertain and have fun,� lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.
Jan Baran, a longtime Republican lawyer whose clients include lobbyists, said: �There is a great deal of resentment. It�s �the devil made me do it,� and the devil this time happens to be lobbyists. They get tarred with corruption, and the next day they get mail from all the same lawmakers who are blaming lobbyists saying, �I have a fund-raiser next week � don�t forget to contribute!� �
Many lobbyists say the rules pose dilemmas. Blocking them from buying dinners or trips for lawmakers, lobbyists say, will only force them to spend more time and money at political fund-raisers to get the same access.
For lawmakers, one of the most contentious elements of the package is the requirement that candidates disclose the names of federally registered lobbyists who solicit and �bundle� contributions. But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.
�That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,� Lawrence O�Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. �It could be perceived as bragging rights.�
Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors� new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.
For lobbyists � who live at the nexus of contributions and favors � it is an alarming trend. �They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,� one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.
Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, �It is a lose-lose situation,� said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.
A self-described �earmarks guy� who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.
�It is a road map that says, �Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,� � he said.
Some loopholes exist. At the annual Aerospace Industries Association trade show in Paris last month, for example, military contractors treated a gaggle of senators to luxurious receptions at galleries, parks and hotels � all permitted under an exception for �widely attended events.�
But John W. Douglass, the group�s president, said the new rules were putting a damper on such events. �Who wants to go to a hot, crowded cocktail party,� Mr. Douglass said, �and have to worry every time the guy brings the hors d�oeuvres tray up, �Should I do this or not?� �
Still, some lobbyists and lawyers wondered privately how long the new carefulness would last.
At the Capital Grille the evening after final passage of the new lobbying bill, private wine lockers by the door still bore the names of several prominent lobbyists. Two mounted stag heads were the only sentries policing the dimly lit bar. Shaking a Belvedere Vodka martini for a lone defense contractor, a bartender leaned in to offer his thoughts.
�What happens at the Capital Grille,� the bartender said, �stays at the Capital Grille.�
Fundraisers Tap Those Who Can't Say No (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601403.html) 'Bundlers' Look to Associates, Employees for Campaign Cash By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
Draining the 'Swamp' Is Not So Easy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601298.html) Skeptics Question Bite of Ethics Rules By Elizabeth Williamson Washington Post Staff Writer, August 7, 2007
hairstyles The sign in the cartoon reads:
GCNaseeb
08-02 07:34 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
gimme_GC2006
03-25 06:28 PM
Sometimes you listen to your heart and take a decision
Sometimes you listen to your brain and take a decision.
I believe this situation should warrant you to listen to your brain and hire a good attorney.
Dont go by your hunch (or heart). Again a friendly advice because there is just too much at stake.
Good luck no matter what you decide.
The more and more I visit this thread, I am feeling I should have went with Attorney.
So I will stay away until I further hear from AO :confused:
Thanks to all of you who wished me
Sometimes you listen to your brain and take a decision.
I believe this situation should warrant you to listen to your brain and hire a good attorney.
Dont go by your hunch (or heart). Again a friendly advice because there is just too much at stake.
Good luck no matter what you decide.
The more and more I visit this thread, I am feeling I should have went with Attorney.
So I will stay away until I further hear from AO :confused:
Thanks to all of you who wished me
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
No comments:
Post a Comment