nojoke
06-26 08:27 PM
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
wallpaper or the T-Mobile logo up in
gaz
12-28 08:41 PM
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As someone who comes from an army family and who has been trained as a reserve, I want to assure you guys who think that an Indo-Pak war will linger; that it will not. It will take Indian army 15-20 days to reach Islamabad if the full force is deployed and the army is in charge of the war and not our politicians.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
Now to actual strategies that India should follow-
1. The civilian government in Pak is not at fault, previously they were responsible for terrorist attacks on India but now they are suffering at the hands of a monster of their own making. Terrorism and ISI.
2. India should use air and missile power to strike out and wipe out a 500km radius around each terrorist camps while offering an olive branch to the Pak govt. What this does is it will kill with certainty all terrorists and will also wipe out surrounding villages.
3. These are casualties of war and are a necessary evil, it will strike fear in the hearts of villagers and when ever a terrorist camp is set up; the surrounding villagers will chase them out in fear of India's wrath.
4. India should send RAW analysts to assassinate all rouge ISI officers, if needed Mossad of Israel can help India.
5. Finally the only way to deal with the problem of Pakistan longtime is to either socially cleanse Pakistan for the civilian government and bring in more modernism or carve out pakistan into several independent states. This is a long term goal which has to be thought about.
If anyone is interested I can post the actual army strengths of India and Pak, its an interesting statistic and I am sure the Pak government knows about it in more detail than me. And it beats me that in spite of knowing the facts they are doing all this war posing. Just a tit bit from it, Indian army (only) is 1.3mil + 450K (reserves) strong. The combined Pak armed forces are 450K active + 500K reserves. India outnumbers Pak in almost every aspect 1:5 on an average. We have fought 4 wars and India has won all 4 times, why should the 5th time be any different? Lets finish this and move on, we have to become an economic superpower and we cannot be bothered by such trivial things like terrorism and pakistan. Lets take terror to the terrorists, like the song from the Hindi movie Arjun goes
" Dushman ko yeh dikadho dushmani hai kya...":cool:
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As someone who comes from an army family and who has been trained as a reserve, I want to assure you guys who think that an Indo-Pak war will linger; that it will not. It will take Indian army 15-20 days to reach Islamabad if the full force is deployed and the army is in charge of the war and not our politicians.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
Now to actual strategies that India should follow-
1. The civilian government in Pak is not at fault, previously they were responsible for terrorist attacks on India but now they are suffering at the hands of a monster of their own making. Terrorism and ISI.
2. India should use air and missile power to strike out and wipe out a 500km radius around each terrorist camps while offering an olive branch to the Pak govt. What this does is it will kill with certainty all terrorists and will also wipe out surrounding villages.
3. These are casualties of war and are a necessary evil, it will strike fear in the hearts of villagers and when ever a terrorist camp is set up; the surrounding villagers will chase them out in fear of India's wrath.
4. India should send RAW analysts to assassinate all rouge ISI officers, if needed Mossad of Israel can help India.
5. Finally the only way to deal with the problem of Pakistan longtime is to either socially cleanse Pakistan for the civilian government and bring in more modernism or carve out pakistan into several independent states. This is a long term goal which has to be thought about.
If anyone is interested I can post the actual army strengths of India and Pak, its an interesting statistic and I am sure the Pak government knows about it in more detail than me. And it beats me that in spite of knowing the facts they are doing all this war posing. Just a tit bit from it, Indian army (only) is 1.3mil + 450K (reserves) strong. The combined Pak armed forces are 450K active + 500K reserves. India outnumbers Pak in almost every aspect 1:5 on an average. We have fought 4 wars and India has won all 4 times, why should the 5th time be any different? Lets finish this and move on, we have to become an economic superpower and we cannot be bothered by such trivial things like terrorism and pakistan. Lets take terror to the terrorists, like the song from the Hindi movie Arjun goes
" Dushman ko yeh dikadho dushmani hai kya...":cool:
Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
2011 Ficheiro:Opera Mobile logo.png
xyzgc
12-23 01:50 PM
I am sure that once muslim community or for that matter any community prospers the radicalism reduces. Unfortunately the religious muslim leaders dont want the community to get educated, prosper and westernized because than they would loose control..its precisely for this reason that the religious leaders of this community have for centuries scared the followers of the community with gods wrath if they changed. The Muslim religion has to become progressive and moderate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
more...
dealsnet
01-07 03:10 PM
Jesus didn't change any commandments. Read bible and comment. He said about the summary for the 10 commnandment. He said 1. love your God 2. Love your neighbour. It contains all commandments. Read the commandments. You will see it contains these 2 meanings only.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature mysteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After that mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human. So no arab can claim to be last prophet. It is blasphamy to claim as phrophet by any one.
Buddy.. I'm not trying to argue with you.. just hope you get more information about what you are talking about.
1- Coptic tradition claims that St. Mark brought Christianity to Egypt around 50 CE. A small community of Christians developed in Alexandria in the late first century, and became more numerous by the end of the second century. Some similarities in beliefs helped Christianity to be accepted by Egyptians, including the beliefs that the Egyptian god Osiris was both human and god, the resurrection of Osiris, and the godly triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
During the third and fourth centuries, the Romans persecuted various religious dissidents, especially Christians. The emperor Diocletian attempted to restructure and unify the Empire, and instigated some harsh reforms which led to rebellion among the Egyptians. Diocletian then began extensive persecutions of Christians, which was referred to by Copts as the Era of Martyrs. The year of Diocletian's accession (284 CE) was designated Year One in the Coptic Christian calendar in order to observe the tragedies. Christianity was threatening to the Roman Empire because its strong monotheistic belief "made it impossible for its serious adherents to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity" (Carroll 1988). Also, many important leadership positions in Egyptian society and the military were held by Christians.
2- According to Jews, god would never change the commandments of the old testament which jesus did.. so for them he was blasphemous.. you just shrug this off as a christian.. by the same token why do u think muslims would care what u think of Mohamed?
Speak for yourself and stop talking on behalf of god.
puddonhead
06-05 04:20 PM
>> Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
This assumption may not be correct. You can take tax deduction for mortgage only if you forego standard deduction. Assuming it is a 3 people household (Mr., Missus and Master) - you would forego the standard deduction of around 10k. So the marginal tax saving would only be around 1k assuming 30% bracket.
In case you itemize anyway (small business owners typically have to do this) - then your calculation of $4k in net tax saving is correct.
My calculation would be:
Situation Own:
Your expense is
item# 4 +
item# 5
- Corrected item# 9
Item #8 is NOT a mitigating factor to your monthly expenses. To earn the quity - you have to make the same amount of cash payment - cash which you could have used in any other form of investment.
So the total would be
Own: 13k + 9k - 1k ~ 20-21k.
Rent: 18k
I did not take investment return into account. If you do that - then I believe real estate would perform poorly in terms of return/risk when compared with almost any other investment - but all that is speculative anyway and hence better left out of the calculation.
So - in the example you have given - renting would come out ahead.
However, in ValidIV's example buying would be superior to renting.
This assumption may not be correct. You can take tax deduction for mortgage only if you forego standard deduction. Assuming it is a 3 people household (Mr., Missus and Master) - you would forego the standard deduction of around 10k. So the marginal tax saving would only be around 1k assuming 30% bracket.
In case you itemize anyway (small business owners typically have to do this) - then your calculation of $4k in net tax saving is correct.
My calculation would be:
Situation Own:
Your expense is
item# 4 +
item# 5
- Corrected item# 9
Item #8 is NOT a mitigating factor to your monthly expenses. To earn the quity - you have to make the same amount of cash payment - cash which you could have used in any other form of investment.
So the total would be
Own: 13k + 9k - 1k ~ 20-21k.
Rent: 18k
I did not take investment return into account. If you do that - then I believe real estate would perform poorly in terms of return/risk when compared with almost any other investment - but all that is speculative anyway and hence better left out of the calculation.
So - in the example you have given - renting would come out ahead.
However, in ValidIV's example buying would be superior to renting.
more...
lfwf
08-05 02:37 PM
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
2010 EdUnify Mobile icon
Macaca
05-01 05:40 PM
Why China�s Crackdown is Selective (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/04/28/why-china%E2%80%99s-crackdown-is-selective/) By Minxin Pei | The Diplomat
For a one-party state that tolerates practically no open defiance of its authority, Beijing�s gentle handling of hundreds of striking truckers in Shanghai who had paralyzed operations at one of China�s largest container ports seems an anomaly. Instead of sending in riot police to break up the blockade last week, the authorities in Shanghai agreed to reduce fees levied on the truckers, who were angry over the charges and rising fuel prices.
The outcome of this incident couldn�t be more different from another recent event: the arrest of Ai Weiwei, one of China�s most prominent political activists. Ai has repeatedly defied the ruling Communist Party and, despite his international stature, Beijing decided to put him behind bars, ignoring widespread international condemnation.
The contrast between these two incidents raises an intriguing question: why does Beijing tolerate certain forms of protest, but represses others?
One obvious reason is that it depends on the nature of the protest. As a rule, a frontal challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, as Ai�s activities embodied, practically guarantees a harsh response from the government. But protest inspired by specific economic grievances, such as truckers� ire over excessive fees, seems to fare better. In the eyes of the ruling party, the former constitutes an existential threat and so no concessions are seen as able to appease political activists rejecting the very legitimacy of the regime.
In contrast, the discontent generated by well-defined economic grievances can be treated with specific concessions. One quote, allegedly from a sitting senior Politburo member, says it all: �What are the contradictions among the people?� the Politburo member supposedly asked. �(These contradictions) can all be solved by using renminbi.�
But things are a little more complicated than this. The reality is that even when dealing with protests or riots fuelled by specific socioeconomic grievances, the behavior of the Chinese authorities isn�t always consistent. Sometimes, government officials pacify protesters through the use of the renminbi, while other times they mercilessly crush such protest.
So how do we make sense of such apparent inconsistencies?
It seems that the type of response to social protest�harsh or soft�depends on a complex mix of factors such as who the protesters are, the resources and organizational capacity at their disposal, the economic sectors in which they are located, and the social repercussions of their protest. Generally speaking, highly organized protesters (such as truck drivers, discharged soldiers and officers of the People�s Liberation Army, and taxi drivers) tend to fare better. They also possess resources that can be easily and effectively deployed. Taxi and truck drivers, for example, can use their vehicles to paralyze traffic and produce instantaneous and widespread social and economic disruptions.
Former PLA servicemen, meanwhile, have a strong institutional identity and are well-connected with each other through ties forged during their military service. Research conducted by Chinese scholars shows that protests organized by former PLA servicemen tend to get the most attention�and the softest treatment�from the government. In contrast, protests by peasants are handled more harshly as they are less organized, possess few strategic assets, and have little impact beyond their villages.
Another important factor is the political calculations of local officials. Despite the popular image of the Chinese state as a hierarchical, top-down system, there�s no uniform national manual for handling protests. This leaves a great deal of discretion at the hands of local officials, but it also places them in a political quandary. Whenever a mass protest erupts, local officials have to think and react fast, but deploying riot police and using force against protesters isn�t necessarily the preferred modus operandi since this could prompt an escalation in violence. Local officials who mishandle mass protests risk demotion or even dismissal, so they must calculate how to end such demonstrations peacefully and quickly, while ensuring that their actions won�t also encourage future protests. It�s a difficult balancing act.
So what influences the political calculations of local officials?
As I�ve said, it�s in large part the nature of the protest, the strength of the protesters, and the likely effects of the protest�all are critical variables. Local officials usually avoid using violence against protests inspired by economic discontent and organized by workers in strategic sectors (transportation and energy, for example). Another factor at play is simply the amount of renminbi available to local officials for buying off the protesters. In the case of striking truckers, the Shanghai municipal government, the wealthiest local jurisdiction in China, has plenty of money. But in poorer areas, the renminbi option just doesn�t exist.
Another factor is media glare�the more media coverage (particularly international media coverage), the more constraints on local officials� use of force. Last, the location of the protest is key. When such protests happen in remote villages or towns, they are quickly and ruthlessly crushed. But when they occur in urban centres, the government (usually) responds more cautiously and gently.
All this means that the happy ending for the striking truckers in Shanghai shouldn�t be taken as an encouraging precedent for workers in other sectors who might think the government will back down in the face of economic demands�however justifiable they might be.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College
For a one-party state that tolerates practically no open defiance of its authority, Beijing�s gentle handling of hundreds of striking truckers in Shanghai who had paralyzed operations at one of China�s largest container ports seems an anomaly. Instead of sending in riot police to break up the blockade last week, the authorities in Shanghai agreed to reduce fees levied on the truckers, who were angry over the charges and rising fuel prices.
The outcome of this incident couldn�t be more different from another recent event: the arrest of Ai Weiwei, one of China�s most prominent political activists. Ai has repeatedly defied the ruling Communist Party and, despite his international stature, Beijing decided to put him behind bars, ignoring widespread international condemnation.
The contrast between these two incidents raises an intriguing question: why does Beijing tolerate certain forms of protest, but represses others?
One obvious reason is that it depends on the nature of the protest. As a rule, a frontal challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, as Ai�s activities embodied, practically guarantees a harsh response from the government. But protest inspired by specific economic grievances, such as truckers� ire over excessive fees, seems to fare better. In the eyes of the ruling party, the former constitutes an existential threat and so no concessions are seen as able to appease political activists rejecting the very legitimacy of the regime.
In contrast, the discontent generated by well-defined economic grievances can be treated with specific concessions. One quote, allegedly from a sitting senior Politburo member, says it all: �What are the contradictions among the people?� the Politburo member supposedly asked. �(These contradictions) can all be solved by using renminbi.�
But things are a little more complicated than this. The reality is that even when dealing with protests or riots fuelled by specific socioeconomic grievances, the behavior of the Chinese authorities isn�t always consistent. Sometimes, government officials pacify protesters through the use of the renminbi, while other times they mercilessly crush such protest.
So how do we make sense of such apparent inconsistencies?
It seems that the type of response to social protest�harsh or soft�depends on a complex mix of factors such as who the protesters are, the resources and organizational capacity at their disposal, the economic sectors in which they are located, and the social repercussions of their protest. Generally speaking, highly organized protesters (such as truck drivers, discharged soldiers and officers of the People�s Liberation Army, and taxi drivers) tend to fare better. They also possess resources that can be easily and effectively deployed. Taxi and truck drivers, for example, can use their vehicles to paralyze traffic and produce instantaneous and widespread social and economic disruptions.
Former PLA servicemen, meanwhile, have a strong institutional identity and are well-connected with each other through ties forged during their military service. Research conducted by Chinese scholars shows that protests organized by former PLA servicemen tend to get the most attention�and the softest treatment�from the government. In contrast, protests by peasants are handled more harshly as they are less organized, possess few strategic assets, and have little impact beyond their villages.
Another important factor is the political calculations of local officials. Despite the popular image of the Chinese state as a hierarchical, top-down system, there�s no uniform national manual for handling protests. This leaves a great deal of discretion at the hands of local officials, but it also places them in a political quandary. Whenever a mass protest erupts, local officials have to think and react fast, but deploying riot police and using force against protesters isn�t necessarily the preferred modus operandi since this could prompt an escalation in violence. Local officials who mishandle mass protests risk demotion or even dismissal, so they must calculate how to end such demonstrations peacefully and quickly, while ensuring that their actions won�t also encourage future protests. It�s a difficult balancing act.
So what influences the political calculations of local officials?
As I�ve said, it�s in large part the nature of the protest, the strength of the protesters, and the likely effects of the protest�all are critical variables. Local officials usually avoid using violence against protests inspired by economic discontent and organized by workers in strategic sectors (transportation and energy, for example). Another factor at play is simply the amount of renminbi available to local officials for buying off the protesters. In the case of striking truckers, the Shanghai municipal government, the wealthiest local jurisdiction in China, has plenty of money. But in poorer areas, the renminbi option just doesn�t exist.
Another factor is media glare�the more media coverage (particularly international media coverage), the more constraints on local officials� use of force. Last, the location of the protest is key. When such protests happen in remote villages or towns, they are quickly and ruthlessly crushed. But when they occur in urban centres, the government (usually) responds more cautiously and gently.
All this means that the happy ending for the striking truckers in Shanghai shouldn�t be taken as an encouraging precedent for workers in other sectors who might think the government will back down in the face of economic demands�however justifiable they might be.
Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College
more...
Macaca
02-22 11:49 AM
Hey Chinese! can we have more of the following here (http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_9.html#commentform).
I am almost 7 years in this country and have paid hundred of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes, and now stuck with the EB priority date.
I want to say there are many good things going on in the world. Many people take the technology advancement and good life for granted, but behind the scene, there are many people who are doing the real hard work, and we are part of them.
The reason I came here is I thought this country can turn my talent into fortune and create opportunities for many people. My college roommate in China created the Linux Virtual Server in his PhD thesis and still leads the LVS project. The government covers their 100% medical + 100% housing + 80%-100% pension. But if he did that in the States, he would be very rich and can achieve more goals.
The current immigration system is neither pro- nor anti-immigration. It is just a limbo system. Everything getting in is just stuck there. Some of my friends have gone back China because they don�t want to wait.
I am almost 7 years in this country and have paid hundred of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes, and now stuck with the EB priority date.
I want to say there are many good things going on in the world. Many people take the technology advancement and good life for granted, but behind the scene, there are many people who are doing the real hard work, and we are part of them.
The reason I came here is I thought this country can turn my talent into fortune and create opportunities for many people. My college roommate in China created the Linux Virtual Server in his PhD thesis and still leads the LVS project. The government covers their 100% medical + 100% housing + 80%-100% pension. But if he did that in the States, he would be very rich and can achieve more goals.
The current immigration system is neither pro- nor anti-immigration. It is just a limbo system. Everything getting in is just stuck there. Some of my friends have gone back China because they don�t want to wait.
hair MeeGo-logo.png - mobileforce
singhsa3
12-27 10:26 AM
Macca,
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
Our is an adovacy group comprising of only volunteers and with specific agenda. There may be several other Advocacy groups with similar characteristics as ours, agreed they may or may not be immigration focussed. Thus, examples of such Advocay groups that had to lobby to change laws in their favor , overcoming oppositions will help.
For such advocacy groups , do you have any insights into the following ( Based on your readings or research)?
a) What such group do to increase active participation of their members?
b) How such groups are organized?
c) How the short term and long term goals are developed/identified?
d) How the leadership pieline for such groups is developed?
e) Best practices when interacting with other like minded groups, without undermining their own agenda.
If you would like to discuss on the phone or through e-mail. Thas should be fine with me.
Thanks
Singhsa3
more...
rsdang
08-11 04:44 PM
Lesson 1:
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.
The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, "I'll give you $800 to drop that towel, "
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs.
When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, "Who was that?"
"It was Bob the next door neighbor," she replies.
"Great," the husband says, "did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?"
Moral of the story
If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time,you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
*********
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, "I'll give each of you just one wish."
"Me first! Me first!" says the admin clerk. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, without a care in the world."
Puff! She's gone.
"Me next! Me next!" says the sales rep. "I want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.."
Puff! He's gone.
"OK, you're up," the Genie says to the manager.
The manager says, "I want those two back in the office after lunch."
Moral of the story
Always let your boss have the first say.
*********
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing?"
The eagle answered: "Sure , why not."
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
Moral of the story
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
*********
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey,"but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull.
They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
Moral of the story
BullShit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
*********
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter.It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate.
Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him..
Morals of this story
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend..
(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth
shut!
Where is lesson 2?
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.
The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.
Before she says a word, Bob says, "I'll give you $800 to drop that towel, "
After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob After a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs.
When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, "Who was that?"
"It was Bob the next door neighbor," she replies.
"Great," the husband says, "did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?"
Moral of the story
If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time,you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
*********
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, "I'll give each of you just one wish."
"Me first! Me first!" says the admin clerk. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, without a care in the world."
Puff! She's gone.
"Me next! Me next!" says the sales rep. "I want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.."
Puff! He's gone.
"OK, you're up," the Genie says to the manager.
The manager says, "I want those two back in the office after lunch."
Moral of the story
Always let your boss have the first say.
*********
Lesson 4:
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing?"
The eagle answered: "Sure , why not."
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
Moral of the story
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
*********
Lesson 5:
A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey,"but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull.
They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.
Moral of the story
BullShit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
*********
Lesson 6:
A little bird was flying south for the Winter.It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate.
Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him..
Morals of this story
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend..
(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth
shut!
Where is lesson 2?
hot Mobile+logo+images
ssa
06-24 06:18 PM
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
Not exactly. Whatever one saves by renting can be invested somewhere else. So the apples to apples comparison would be the return homeowner gets on the amount of his monthly mortgage payment that goes towards the principle (home equity) to the return the renter gets on the difference he invested. Return on home equity is currently negative all over US (houses declining in price) where as you still can get some positive returns on 100% safe investment like CDs or US treasury bills.
In any case majority of your payment for the first five year goes towards paying interest. So unless you expect hosue prices to rise in next 3-4 years - a remote possibility, the best we can hope for is they stabilize - there is no monitory benefit to be gained by buying now against renting for some more time and saving more money for your future down payment.
Not exactly. Whatever one saves by renting can be invested somewhere else. So the apples to apples comparison would be the return homeowner gets on the amount of his monthly mortgage payment that goes towards the principle (home equity) to the return the renter gets on the difference he invested. Return on home equity is currently negative all over US (houses declining in price) where as you still can get some positive returns on 100% safe investment like CDs or US treasury bills.
In any case majority of your payment for the first five year goes towards paying interest. So unless you expect hosue prices to rise in next 3-4 years - a remote possibility, the best we can hope for is they stabilize - there is no monitory benefit to be gained by buying now against renting for some more time and saving more money for your future down payment.
more...
house resources/images/logo.pngquot;
Pagal
06-20 03:45 PM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
tattoo 10 mobile phone icon (aiamp;
qualified_trash
05-17 01:51 PM
Qualified_trash,
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
Sounds good to me. I have also made my information available to the core group to be a volunteer. I believe it is more important to do some work rather than just give money. I understand that the work that IV is doing is going to benefit all of us tremendously.
As Sir Winston C once said -- "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Our fight may pale into comparison when you consider that he was discussing WWII. But the spirit needs to be the same from our side if we want to achieve the goal.
Nice blog entry by someone asking Mr Dobbs to put his money where his mouth is:
http://www.visalaw.com/05mar2/10mar205.html
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
Sounds good to me. I have also made my information available to the core group to be a volunteer. I believe it is more important to do some work rather than just give money. I understand that the work that IV is doing is going to benefit all of us tremendously.
As Sir Winston C once said -- "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Our fight may pale into comparison when you consider that he was discussing WWII. But the spirit needs to be the same from our side if we want to achieve the goal.
Nice blog entry by someone asking Mr Dobbs to put his money where his mouth is:
http://www.visalaw.com/05mar2/10mar205.html
more...
pictures Free Mobile Icon Set for
sc3
08-05 06:48 PM
Here we go again. EB2 is fraud, they are all really EB3, but guess what? All the bright EB3s are really EB2, they are all suffering needlesly. Right?
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
dresses L4 Media middot; L4 Mobile Logo
bharol
01-08 12:11 AM
Blaming any religion on terrorism is inappropriate, inflammatory, and just plain irresponsible.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
If they don't want the religion to be blamed, they should not give religious sounding names to their organizations like JAISH-E-MOHAMMAD, LASHKAR-E-TAIBA etc and then call their killings a JIHAD.
Here's some proof for you:
MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)
And I'll give you a couple specific examples :
Al-Fakhoura School Bombed, 42 Killed, Including Children; 13,000 Homeless; Water, Medicine in Short Supply (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html)
Muhammad Atta was radicalized by watching the gruesome results of that attack and he was a 9/11 hijacker. (He flew one of the planes.) That attack happened to be Israel bombing a school in 1986.
Torture trail to September 11 : A two-part investigation into state brutality opens with a look at how the violent interrogation of Islamist extremists hardened their views, helped to create al-Qaida and now, more than ever, is fuelling fundamentalist hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/24/alqaida.terrorism1)
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example was tortured in Egypt. He was Al Q's number 2 and known as the "brains" behind the 9/11 attacks. He was a successful doctor.
It is not religion that makes people willing to blow up themselves and kill others. It is perceived oppression against one's people. If you look closely enough, you will find it.
Blaming religious beliefs on terrorism is sloppy thinking that:
inflames people
justifies further violence
divides people
creates more terrorism
The IRA, Shining Path, the Basques, and yes, Al Q, all have one thing in common: their political aspirations for their people to be freed from what they see as oppression. The Irish Catholics weren't allowed good jobs. Peruvian Marxists were unhappy with their government. The Basques were mistreated by Franco. Many Middle Easterners want the right to form their own governments, which we in the west actively prevent by supporting dictatorships.
Invariably, when people blame religion for some injustice, there is a political or economic reason behind it. The Crusades, for example, were not about converting people, but about wealth, power and what they saw as "glory".
Please stop with the religious scape goating, bigotry and hatred. It leads nowhere but down.
If they don't want the religion to be blamed, they should not give religious sounding names to their organizations like JAISH-E-MOHAMMAD, LASHKAR-E-TAIBA etc and then call their killings a JIHAD.
more...
makeup its Explosive Mobile
chanduv23
05-17 06:31 AM
For folks who think banning any sort of consulting on hn1b will solve the purpose and has a good cause, this is what is going to happen.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
girlfriend videocon logo png,
jnraajan
06-05 02:25 PM
It is December 1st not November 30th.
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php
Actually, It has to before Dec Ist, so technically, you should have closed the house at least on Nov 30th.
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php
Actually, It has to before Dec Ist, so technically, you should have closed the house at least on Nov 30th.
hairstyles Mobile: (602) 301-9731
pappu
03-25 07:03 PM
I am trying to upload a pdf file but keep getting error message.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
send it to info at immigrationvoice.org and we can upload it.
It is a known bug that we could not fix in the forum. Some members are unable to upload files.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
send it to info at immigrationvoice.org and we can upload it.
It is a known bug that we could not fix in the forum. Some members are unable to upload files.
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
abcdgc
12-27 01:17 AM
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
Let me give you a proof about Kayani, not that you will agree with it, but I will give it a shot anyways.
Pakistan PM agreed to send ISI DG to India when he spoke with Indian PM. Later Zardari also publicly agreed to send ISI DG. Next day the three i.e. Gilani, Zardari and Kaayani had a meeting. After the meeting Pakistan announced that Pakistan will not send ISI DG to India. Now, if Gilani and Zardari agreed to send ISI DG, why the conclusion of the meeting was with the decision that ISI DG will not go to India. It was the starting point of escalation. Who triggered it? Kaayani. This is a well covered report. The point is, if sending ISI DG could deescalate the situation, and if India is asking to send ISI DG, why would Pakistan not send ISI DG even after PM and President agreed sending Pasha to India? Kaayani was himself ISI chief when Musharraf was President/Army Chief. The point is Hamid Gul, Kaayni and Pasha are all same group of cheats.