alisa
12-27 01:44 AM
Look at this way...
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Eastern border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
I agree with you to a great extent. The Pakistani society is fractured right now, and there is nothing to unite the country than a conflict with India.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Eastern border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
I agree with you to a great extent. The Pakistani society is fractured right now, and there is nothing to unite the country than a conflict with India.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
wallpaper short curly hairstyle 08
Macaca
12-30 08:20 AM
2007: Democrats in Control, but Thwarted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123000447.html) By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press, Dec 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
jonty_11
08-02 12:07 PM
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
2011 short hairstyles for curly
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
more...
AGC4ME
04-07 07:24 PM
But congress needs to find some solution for H1b mess like applying 150k H1b in one day. If no alternative solution is suggested some part/all part of this bill may be considered. US companies will not be impacted as they are not h1b dependent and they are hiring more than 50% US workers so they may not oppose that much. If Microsoft lobby for 200k H1b but still if they could not get any h1b why will they lobby it? American companies will either ask unlimited H1b or restrictions for bodyshopping so that everyone will get fair share of H1b. Lottery is shame as many deserving candidates will be rejected but many lower grade people may enter there is no merrit in selection of H1b. If IV is opposing this they need to give some solution for H1b mess. Otherwise no point. Also the bill was introduced by both Democrat and Republican. So Whether it is passed or not it is going to be considered
And with a posting like this u think you are higher grade....
And with a posting like this u think you are higher grade....
gapala
06-23 01:52 PM
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
\
Yeah sure! Based on your calc skills, people will get under water in no time.. Did you consider the part of principal at all in your calc? 23000 a year and end up at 8K ????
Based on my calc, your monthly payment will be somewhere around $2750 for a 400K loan at that rate. Do the math that makes it 2750 x 12 = 33000 and your 666 will become 1500 now :). Now add all the other stuff such as HOA, Maintenance, property tax, closing cost and what not... to derive the per month cost for first year
Credits are one time.. how about next year and there after??
Unbelievable!
\
Yeah sure! Based on your calc skills, people will get under water in no time.. Did you consider the part of principal at all in your calc? 23000 a year and end up at 8K ????
Based on my calc, your monthly payment will be somewhere around $2750 for a 400K loan at that rate. Do the math that makes it 2750 x 12 = 33000 and your 666 will become 1500 now :). Now add all the other stuff such as HOA, Maintenance, property tax, closing cost and what not... to derive the per month cost for first year
Credits are one time.. how about next year and there after??
Unbelievable!
more...
Macaca
12-27 07:31 PM
'A Hole to Bury You'
A first-hand account of how China's police treats the citizens it's supposed to serve and protect. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045152244293970.html)
By TENG BIAO | Wall Street Journal
On Dec. 23, the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons From Forced Disappearance came into force. China has declined to accede to this convention. My experience that same day is just one of many examples of how the authorities continue to falsely imprison Chinese citizens.
That evening, I was in the Xizhimen area of Beijing chatting with my colleagues Piao Xiang, Xu Zhiyong and Zhang Yongpan. Ms. Piao had been disappeared after she and I went to Dandong on Oct. 7 to argue the court case of Leng Guoquan, a man framed by the police for drug trafficking; she had only been released on Dec. 20. Her abductors had been officers from the state security squad of the Public Security Bureau. I asked her to narrate the entire process of her disappearance in detail.
Later, I suggested to Mr. Zhang, "Let's go and see Fan Yafeng's mom." The day before, we had contacted fellow human rights lawyer Fan Yafeng and found out that he was under strict house arrest. But he had said that his mother was going to be alone at home in the evening and so I thought we should go see her.
Because I used to go there frequently I remembered clearly where she lived. As Mr. Zhang and I entered the block of flats and started walking up the staircase, I had a feeling that someone was following us. Observing that we went to the third floor, a young security guard asked us whom we were visiting. We said, "We're seeing a friend." Immediately, he called out for someone else to come up.
We knocked on the door and were greeted by Mr. Fan's mother. But as we entered the flat, the security guard came with us, and a person in plainclothes stormed in just behind him. The man in plainclothes demanded to check our IDs in a very coarse manner. I asked him in a loud voice, "What sort of people are you? How can you enter a private residence without permission?"
The plainclothes man said, "I am a police officer. We want to check your ID cards." "You're a police officer? I want to see your police ID." "If I am telling you I'm a police officer, then that's what I am. What are you doing here?" "Is that your business? How can you prove you're a police officer if you don't show your police ID card?"
The situation was escalating. I ducked my head and used my phone to send out a message on Twitter, and Mr. Zhang made a phone call to a friend. It was then about half past eight. The plainclothes guy made a phone call asking for reinforcement. Later I learned that at that moment our own reinforcements were mobilizing.
Two police officers showed up. One of them showed us his police ID. I asked Mr. Zhang to note down his police ID number and name, Shi Ligang, and pass it on to our Twitter friends. Then they wanted to check our IDs. I said, "According to Article 15 of the National Identity Card Law you have no right to check them in the present situation."
He said, "We are conducting an investigation in accordance with the People's Police Law." I said, "You can only question people who are suspected of having broken a law. We've just come to a friend's home for a visit, so you have no right to question us."
We quarreled for some time, and that state security squad officer in plainclothes kept making phone calls asking for more people to come over. The situation was getting worse, so I sent another Twitter message.
I talked to Mr. Fan's mother and the older state security squad officer told her not to speak to me. I got angry. "You're not even disclosing your identity, do you think you can enter other people's flat as you please and order the flat-owner about�not to mention that that's illegal, it lacks every human feeling!"
"You should think more clearly. Don't talk so much about the law with me. Do you know where we are? We are on Communist Party territory!"
The state security squad officer later tried to beat me. I warned him, "As you haven't shown me any documentation, you don't even have the right to seek a conversation with me. Don't push me." Then he said, "Don't you know what place you are in? This is China! Now you've come here, don't think you can leave again!"
After about 15 minutes, a large contingent of police officers arrived. I was in the washroom at the time. I could hear the police dragging Mr. Zhang forcefully downstairs. The plainclothes man banged madly at the door of the washroom, cracking a hole into the thin wooden panel of the door. I said, "I just want to use the washroom!" He said, "You're not allowed to," and kept banging against the door. He inserted his hand through the hole he had made, and undid the latch. Several police officers dragged me out. The state security squad officer took away my glasses. I am severely near-sighted, and as a result I was quite unable to see clearly. Later, I wasn't even able to read a police officer's ID number.
I protested loudly against this treatment. A whole group of police officers pushed, shoved, pulled and dragged me down the stairs and into a police van. Mr. Zhang's glasses and mobile phone had also been taken away. As we were dragged away we were also beaten. My hand had been grabbed so violently that it was injured in a few places. A police officer wanted to take away my mobile phone, I resisted with all my force and he eventually desisted.
When we arrived at the Shuangyushu police station, I said, "You have no right to take us into a police station. You can't be ignorant of the provision of Article 9 of the Police Law!"
"Want to tell us what it says?"
"'In the following four sets of circumstances, the police may take citizens to a public security bureau for questioning: (1) if the person has been accused of having committed a crime, (2) if a person has been discovered at the suspected scene of a crime, (3) if a person is suspected of a crime and if their identity is not clear, (4) if a person carries goods with them that may have been stolen." And if you want to check a person's ID card, you can only do that in the following cases: (1) suspicion of illegal behavior, (2) control of a site, (3) sudden incidents severely endangering the social order, or (4) other situations stipulated in the law - and such a law stipulating other situations must have been passed by the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee." I knew this stuff inside out.
"But you are a person 'whose identity is unclear.'"
"But according to the law, persons whose identity is unclear can only be checked if they are 'suspected of having committed a crime.' I don't belong in that category." Since there are more and more activists nowadays who are familiar with these two legal provisions and use them to challenge the police, I've been told by police officers that they hate the very bones of the legislators who created them.
Mr. Zhang and I were taken to two different rooms on the second floor of the police station. A gang of police officers again came to wrestle my mobile phone from me; and there was another scuffle. All the things inside my pocket were taken out. I protested. Seven or eight police officers loudly insulted me. Two or three were swearing especially viciously, using mafia slang words to curse me.
A police officer shouted at me to sit; I pushed the chair over with my foot. Several officers rushed forward and twisted my arms, punched my head and choked me, and pushed me to the ground. They took me to another room. In the corridor I cried out, "I am a law teacher, I know whether or not you are violating the law." I said this primarily to make them understand that they were dealing with someone who knew the law, to make them refrain from acting rashly and inflicting too much pain�and it was also meant for the ears of Mr. Zhang and the officers who were interrogating him.
Several police officers pushed me into a corner and one guy came up and fiercely dragged at my tie until he finally managed to pull it off, and threw it to the floor. The police officers pointed at my nose and coarsely swore at me again, and again they cried, "Do you know where you are? If we beat you, what can you do?"
After a while, a police officer came in and said that we had been detained because we had gone to Fan Yafeng's home. One officer, who I heard addressed as Xu Ping, went from merely loudly interrogating to roaring accusations at me: "O ho, that's how it is! In that case, you belong to the enemy! F- your mother, you went to see Fan Yafeng! That c-! In that case we don't have to talk about legal constraints at all! And you motherf- won't get out of here again! You traitors, you dogs! Counter-revolutionaries! The Communist Party feeds you and pays you and you still don't acknowledge how good it is! You keep insulting the Party!� We will treat you just like an enemy!"
I was very curious. "How do you treat your enemies?"
"Like Falun Gong!"
"And how do you treat Falun Gong?"
"You'll find out by and by."
I felt a pang of horror.
A first-hand account of how China's police treats the citizens it's supposed to serve and protect. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045152244293970.html)
By TENG BIAO | Wall Street Journal
On Dec. 23, the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons From Forced Disappearance came into force. China has declined to accede to this convention. My experience that same day is just one of many examples of how the authorities continue to falsely imprison Chinese citizens.
That evening, I was in the Xizhimen area of Beijing chatting with my colleagues Piao Xiang, Xu Zhiyong and Zhang Yongpan. Ms. Piao had been disappeared after she and I went to Dandong on Oct. 7 to argue the court case of Leng Guoquan, a man framed by the police for drug trafficking; she had only been released on Dec. 20. Her abductors had been officers from the state security squad of the Public Security Bureau. I asked her to narrate the entire process of her disappearance in detail.
Later, I suggested to Mr. Zhang, "Let's go and see Fan Yafeng's mom." The day before, we had contacted fellow human rights lawyer Fan Yafeng and found out that he was under strict house arrest. But he had said that his mother was going to be alone at home in the evening and so I thought we should go see her.
Because I used to go there frequently I remembered clearly where she lived. As Mr. Zhang and I entered the block of flats and started walking up the staircase, I had a feeling that someone was following us. Observing that we went to the third floor, a young security guard asked us whom we were visiting. We said, "We're seeing a friend." Immediately, he called out for someone else to come up.
We knocked on the door and were greeted by Mr. Fan's mother. But as we entered the flat, the security guard came with us, and a person in plainclothes stormed in just behind him. The man in plainclothes demanded to check our IDs in a very coarse manner. I asked him in a loud voice, "What sort of people are you? How can you enter a private residence without permission?"
The plainclothes man said, "I am a police officer. We want to check your ID cards." "You're a police officer? I want to see your police ID." "If I am telling you I'm a police officer, then that's what I am. What are you doing here?" "Is that your business? How can you prove you're a police officer if you don't show your police ID card?"
The situation was escalating. I ducked my head and used my phone to send out a message on Twitter, and Mr. Zhang made a phone call to a friend. It was then about half past eight. The plainclothes guy made a phone call asking for reinforcement. Later I learned that at that moment our own reinforcements were mobilizing.
Two police officers showed up. One of them showed us his police ID. I asked Mr. Zhang to note down his police ID number and name, Shi Ligang, and pass it on to our Twitter friends. Then they wanted to check our IDs. I said, "According to Article 15 of the National Identity Card Law you have no right to check them in the present situation."
He said, "We are conducting an investigation in accordance with the People's Police Law." I said, "You can only question people who are suspected of having broken a law. We've just come to a friend's home for a visit, so you have no right to question us."
We quarreled for some time, and that state security squad officer in plainclothes kept making phone calls asking for more people to come over. The situation was getting worse, so I sent another Twitter message.
I talked to Mr. Fan's mother and the older state security squad officer told her not to speak to me. I got angry. "You're not even disclosing your identity, do you think you can enter other people's flat as you please and order the flat-owner about�not to mention that that's illegal, it lacks every human feeling!"
"You should think more clearly. Don't talk so much about the law with me. Do you know where we are? We are on Communist Party territory!"
The state security squad officer later tried to beat me. I warned him, "As you haven't shown me any documentation, you don't even have the right to seek a conversation with me. Don't push me." Then he said, "Don't you know what place you are in? This is China! Now you've come here, don't think you can leave again!"
After about 15 minutes, a large contingent of police officers arrived. I was in the washroom at the time. I could hear the police dragging Mr. Zhang forcefully downstairs. The plainclothes man banged madly at the door of the washroom, cracking a hole into the thin wooden panel of the door. I said, "I just want to use the washroom!" He said, "You're not allowed to," and kept banging against the door. He inserted his hand through the hole he had made, and undid the latch. Several police officers dragged me out. The state security squad officer took away my glasses. I am severely near-sighted, and as a result I was quite unable to see clearly. Later, I wasn't even able to read a police officer's ID number.
I protested loudly against this treatment. A whole group of police officers pushed, shoved, pulled and dragged me down the stairs and into a police van. Mr. Zhang's glasses and mobile phone had also been taken away. As we were dragged away we were also beaten. My hand had been grabbed so violently that it was injured in a few places. A police officer wanted to take away my mobile phone, I resisted with all my force and he eventually desisted.
When we arrived at the Shuangyushu police station, I said, "You have no right to take us into a police station. You can't be ignorant of the provision of Article 9 of the Police Law!"
"Want to tell us what it says?"
"'In the following four sets of circumstances, the police may take citizens to a public security bureau for questioning: (1) if the person has been accused of having committed a crime, (2) if a person has been discovered at the suspected scene of a crime, (3) if a person is suspected of a crime and if their identity is not clear, (4) if a person carries goods with them that may have been stolen." And if you want to check a person's ID card, you can only do that in the following cases: (1) suspicion of illegal behavior, (2) control of a site, (3) sudden incidents severely endangering the social order, or (4) other situations stipulated in the law - and such a law stipulating other situations must have been passed by the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee." I knew this stuff inside out.
"But you are a person 'whose identity is unclear.'"
"But according to the law, persons whose identity is unclear can only be checked if they are 'suspected of having committed a crime.' I don't belong in that category." Since there are more and more activists nowadays who are familiar with these two legal provisions and use them to challenge the police, I've been told by police officers that they hate the very bones of the legislators who created them.
Mr. Zhang and I were taken to two different rooms on the second floor of the police station. A gang of police officers again came to wrestle my mobile phone from me; and there was another scuffle. All the things inside my pocket were taken out. I protested. Seven or eight police officers loudly insulted me. Two or three were swearing especially viciously, using mafia slang words to curse me.
A police officer shouted at me to sit; I pushed the chair over with my foot. Several officers rushed forward and twisted my arms, punched my head and choked me, and pushed me to the ground. They took me to another room. In the corridor I cried out, "I am a law teacher, I know whether or not you are violating the law." I said this primarily to make them understand that they were dealing with someone who knew the law, to make them refrain from acting rashly and inflicting too much pain�and it was also meant for the ears of Mr. Zhang and the officers who were interrogating him.
Several police officers pushed me into a corner and one guy came up and fiercely dragged at my tie until he finally managed to pull it off, and threw it to the floor. The police officers pointed at my nose and coarsely swore at me again, and again they cried, "Do you know where you are? If we beat you, what can you do?"
After a while, a police officer came in and said that we had been detained because we had gone to Fan Yafeng's home. One officer, who I heard addressed as Xu Ping, went from merely loudly interrogating to roaring accusations at me: "O ho, that's how it is! In that case, you belong to the enemy! F- your mother, you went to see Fan Yafeng! That c-! In that case we don't have to talk about legal constraints at all! And you motherf- won't get out of here again! You traitors, you dogs! Counter-revolutionaries! The Communist Party feeds you and pays you and you still don't acknowledge how good it is! You keep insulting the Party!� We will treat you just like an enemy!"
I was very curious. "How do you treat your enemies?"
"Like Falun Gong!"
"And how do you treat Falun Gong?"
"You'll find out by and by."
I felt a pang of horror.
2010 Haircuts for Thick Wavy Hair
vactorboy29
08-26 10:34 PM
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
more...
bfadlia
01-10 02:56 AM
Again I beg to differ. Britishers gave land to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Why should only Israel be responsible? Where will they go? Why not Egypt and Jordan? Secondly, I have children and I am also terrified by the pictures of brutal massacre but think about this. If those who want to kill my children is hiding among women and children what choices do I have? be "civil" and let them kill our children or attack and kill them?
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
hair short hair styles for men with
bfadlia
01-09 04:26 PM
This is the simple logic everybody tried to convey to Refugee_now in 15 pages of this thread. But he don't understand or don't want to !!!!
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
more...
xyzgc
12-24 04:46 PM
Dude, I have donated over $ 1000 to IV so far, and participated in every campaign, and made enough calls to give me blisters, all without seeking attention or green dots. Next please?
That's great to know.
So, what exactly bothering you, friend? I know you don't like this thread but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing what you are doing, right? This is just a thread, it can be closed anytime and I think it will be closed very soon. I know you don't care about publicity and you care about the green card not just for you but also for others. In any case, believe me, any amount of red-green dots/publicity on IV/bad reputation on IV, will not make a dime worth of difference to the green cards.
Don't let such things bother you, when you have already contributed a lot towards the IV cause.
Btw, green to you. I know you don't care but I think you deserve it more than anybody else.
That's great to know.
So, what exactly bothering you, friend? I know you don't like this thread but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing what you are doing, right? This is just a thread, it can be closed anytime and I think it will be closed very soon. I know you don't care about publicity and you care about the green card not just for you but also for others. In any case, believe me, any amount of red-green dots/publicity on IV/bad reputation on IV, will not make a dime worth of difference to the green cards.
Don't let such things bother you, when you have already contributed a lot towards the IV cause.
Btw, green to you. I know you don't care but I think you deserve it more than anybody else.
hot curly hair. short haircuts
riva2005
04-06 08:31 PM
What's going on here is that approx there are 500,000 people on H1B visas in this country.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
more...
house curly haircuts.
bigboy007
10-05 06:13 PM
But as many have pointed out , I have same doubts whether US will maintain its edge with all these issues facing.
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
tattoo Short Curly Hair Styles
NeverEndingH1
12-17 02:39 PM
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
more...
pictures Modern Short Curly Hairstyles
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
dresses While straight hair has an
Macaca
05-07 09:13 PM
'The Other K Street' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050600892.html) In the Concrete Canyon of the Business Lobby, a Pocket of Liberal Activists Settles In, By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, May 7, 2007
more...
makeup celebrity hair styles|short
Gravitation
03-25 01:25 PM
Good Points. I like discussing real-estate; I'm deeply interested in it. So in that spirit of having a good conversation, here's my response:
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy. But owning your primary residence is the first step towards prosperity.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Yes, if you're planning to go back... don't buy.
I completely agree that buying a house is a long term move. But I disagree with some of the points:
1. Does rent always go up? No, my rent did not go up at all during the real estate boom as the number of ppl renting was low. Recently my rent has gone up only $75 pm. (love rent control!!!) So in 5 years, my monthly rent has gone up a total of $125 per month
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
2. I hear about tax rebate for homeowners. But what about property tax?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
3. What about mortgage insurance payments?
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
It is a misconception that 5-10 years is the cycle for real estate.
Here's how in a sane real estate market the cycle should work:
No population influx in your area or there is no exodus from your area:
Your real estate ownership should be 25 years because that's when the next generation is ready to buy houses.
However, in places like SF Bay Area/new York/Boston where there is continuous influx of young working ppl this cycle can be reduced to 15-20 years.
Over the last few years, nobody thought of longevity required to make money in RE. Now that it is tanking ppl are talking about 5-10 years. Unless you are buying in a booming place, your ownership has to be 15+ years to turn a real profit.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
This is purely the financial aspect of ownership. If you have a family I think its really nice to have a house but you don't have to really take on the liability. You can rent the same house for much less. But if you are clear in your mind that no matter what I am going to live in XYZ town/city for the next 20 years, go for it.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy. But owning your primary residence is the first step towards prosperity.
As a sidenote for Indians. We all have either aging or soon to start aging parents. The way I see it, caring for aging parents is a social debt that we must pay back. This will need me to go back to India. Therefore, if you feel you need to care for your parents, don't commit to a house.
Yes, if you're planning to go back... don't buy.
girlfriend curly hairstyle for short hair
thomachan72
08-06 04:28 PM
THERE IS THIS GOOD OLD BARBER IN SOME CITY IN THE AMERICA....
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
hairstyles Pictures Of Short Haircuts For
tdasara
01-28 12:21 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
ItIsNotFunny
03-27 09:02 AM
10 Reasons to Lobby for your cause (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do�people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
......
Very nice post.
For many of us, lobbying is something other people do�people who wear fancy clothes and buy politicians lunch at expensive restaurants. But lobbying, or more simply, trying to influence those who make policies that affect our lives, is something anyone can do. And it is something all of us should do if we believe in a good cause and in a democratic form of government. Read on to find out why.
......
Very nice post.
boreal
04-08 12:17 PM
I would rather buy low price house at high rates than low rates and at higher price. I can sell my house anytime I want. If you buy house at peak, you will not have equity when the price falls and you get holding the bag.
Thanks, the above quote is sealing the deal for me (NOT buying now). i am in the bay area too, was very excited to see all those Gilroy homes drop in value (sometimes more than 150K as shown in MLS listings, yeah i was prepared for the hell-commute to San jose from Gilroy just for the pleasure of giving a big house to my family...). But thanks to all the arguments and counter-arguments, i have more knowledge now and know not to burn more of my hard earned money (God knows how much i have already lost on stocks!!)
Thanks, the above quote is sealing the deal for me (NOT buying now). i am in the bay area too, was very excited to see all those Gilroy homes drop in value (sometimes more than 150K as shown in MLS listings, yeah i was prepared for the hell-commute to San jose from Gilroy just for the pleasure of giving a big house to my family...). But thanks to all the arguments and counter-arguments, i have more knowledge now and know not to burn more of my hard earned money (God knows how much i have already lost on stocks!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment