HawaldarNaik
12-29 12:19 AM
Well comparing India to Israel is not going to be justified at this time cause Israel has had a offensive stance right from its inception whereas India has always been reactive, and in the long run, i beleive that has paid off.
However at this point we have to make sure our neighbours take corrective action though to be frank, i am not sure they are capable or have the potency of bringing about the changes cause at the ground level all those dangerous elements (some who have gone and taken refuge from India), enjoy not just support from the intelligence and the army but also from some locals and roam around freely
So in short it is a rogue country, frankly even the super powers are not in control of the situation there ........as some factions are loyal to the superpowers, some to the dangerous elements and some to regional powers, and each one of them is being used by these powers to carry out attacks to various countries around the world...and implment their respective agendas which are contrary to one another.....
What is the strategy for India
In the short term i would say 'Our Sardar' (chieftain...i firmly think this time 'The Sardar' is leading from the front...and not being remote controlled by the lady ) is doing the right thing, he is garnering global support (he first tried the super powers and now is in touch with the regional powers also, and has got PC a highly efficient resource to strengthen internal security), at the same time watching the response from our neighbour, who are talking of war but are trying and i am saying trying to bring about some positive change (how much of that is possible i am pretty pessimestic due to reasons specified above...no single control or point of contact).
In the long term there has to be a solution to the neighbouring country problem either they revamp and reform (after 60 years of being the bad guys...hit men.... for various powers world over), or look at the possiblity of breaking down the wall cause then we can try and clear up the mess......
However at this point we have to make sure our neighbours take corrective action though to be frank, i am not sure they are capable or have the potency of bringing about the changes cause at the ground level all those dangerous elements (some who have gone and taken refuge from India), enjoy not just support from the intelligence and the army but also from some locals and roam around freely
So in short it is a rogue country, frankly even the super powers are not in control of the situation there ........as some factions are loyal to the superpowers, some to the dangerous elements and some to regional powers, and each one of them is being used by these powers to carry out attacks to various countries around the world...and implment their respective agendas which are contrary to one another.....
What is the strategy for India
In the short term i would say 'Our Sardar' (chieftain...i firmly think this time 'The Sardar' is leading from the front...and not being remote controlled by the lady ) is doing the right thing, he is garnering global support (he first tried the super powers and now is in touch with the regional powers also, and has got PC a highly efficient resource to strengthen internal security), at the same time watching the response from our neighbour, who are talking of war but are trying and i am saying trying to bring about some positive change (how much of that is possible i am pretty pessimestic due to reasons specified above...no single control or point of contact).
In the long term there has to be a solution to the neighbouring country problem either they revamp and reform (after 60 years of being the bad guys...hit men.... for various powers world over), or look at the possiblity of breaking down the wall cause then we can try and clear up the mess......
wallpaper prince charles and princess
Ramba
07-14 03:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very understandable the frustration of Eb3-I guys. The reason is very simple; supply Vs demand; nothing more nothing less. Both EB2 and EB3 gets about 40K visas per year. Since worldwide demand for EB3 is extremely very high, India gets abot 3000 visas per year. However, there is not much worldwide demand for EB2 visas, India and and China gets all spill over in EB2 catagory plus unused visas from EB1. This makes availability of visas in Eb2-for India and China is very much higher than EB3. I guess about 30 to 35K (out of 40K) visas goes to EB2 for both India and china. However in Eb3 both In and China gets 3K each. Just compare 30K vs 3k.
Study the visa statistics for last 10 years at DOS website. http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/st...tics_1476.html
Then, one can easily unserstand the demand for EB3 in worldwide. The reason is, unfortunatly EB3 has professionals and skilled workers catagory. There are thousands of skilled workers (who has just two years working experince with out much education) are in demand for EB3 numbers every year accross the world. This makes the availablity for India is just 3000. 1500 restarunt cooks with their dependents from India is sufficient to consume one year quota in Eb3. Thatswhy India stuck in 2001. It will be like that in future too. It will be in snail phase.
So, it is not the DOS or CIS or DOL determines the movement of cutoff dates. It is the INA that contolls the allocation. DOS is just doing their job.
The INA does not address how to give prefrence to a EB3 Indian guy with PD in 2001 with EB3-ROW guys with PD 2007. Every year EB3-ROW pours tons of new application. The demand from ROW will not dimnish, so India will get only 3000 by the virtue of increasing new demand by ROW form easch passing years. A ROW guy with PD 2007/2008/2009 will be in preference than a EB3 guy from India with PD 2002. Therefore there should be a mechanism to balance this effect. Unfortunatly there is no provision in INA. So, DOS may not help to overcome this, as DOS is a just a implementer of INA.
It is very understandable the frustration of Eb3-I guys. The reason is very simple; supply Vs demand; nothing more nothing less. Both EB2 and EB3 gets about 40K visas per year. Since worldwide demand for EB3 is extremely very high, India gets abot 3000 visas per year. However, there is not much worldwide demand for EB2 visas, India and and China gets all spill over in EB2 catagory plus unused visas from EB1. This makes availability of visas in Eb2-for India and China is very much higher than EB3. I guess about 30 to 35K (out of 40K) visas goes to EB2 for both India and china. However in Eb3 both In and China gets 3K each. Just compare 30K vs 3k.
Study the visa statistics for last 10 years at DOS website. http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/st...tics_1476.html
Then, one can easily unserstand the demand for EB3 in worldwide. The reason is, unfortunatly EB3 has professionals and skilled workers catagory. There are thousands of skilled workers (who has just two years working experince with out much education) are in demand for EB3 numbers every year accross the world. This makes the availablity for India is just 3000. 1500 restarunt cooks with their dependents from India is sufficient to consume one year quota in Eb3. Thatswhy India stuck in 2001. It will be like that in future too. It will be in snail phase.
So, it is not the DOS or CIS or DOL determines the movement of cutoff dates. It is the INA that contolls the allocation. DOS is just doing their job.
The INA does not address how to give prefrence to a EB3 Indian guy with PD in 2001 with EB3-ROW guys with PD 2007. Every year EB3-ROW pours tons of new application. The demand from ROW will not dimnish, so India will get only 3000 by the virtue of increasing new demand by ROW form easch passing years. A ROW guy with PD 2007/2008/2009 will be in preference than a EB3 guy from India with PD 2002. Therefore there should be a mechanism to balance this effect. Unfortunatly there is no provision in INA. So, DOS may not help to overcome this, as DOS is a just a implementer of INA.
chanduv23
03-24 10:38 AM
hehehe..
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
2011 prince charles and princess
Macaca
12-21 05:34 PM
Polls Aside, Bush Ends Year With Victories (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119819850269643697.html) By John D. McKinnon | Wall Street Journal, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is ending the year with the approval of just one in three voters, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, but he is enjoying a string of legislative successes in Congress, on matters from Iraq-war funding and the federal budget to energy policy, tax increases and mortgage relief.
Bush aides believe they benefited from overreaching by Democrats flush with their 2006 election victory. The White House began the year by laying out relatively modest goals on issues like energy and federal spending. They clung to those goals, even as some Republicans in Congress wavered. White House officials wagered that voters care about concrete results and ultimately would blame Congress, not the White House, if results failed to appear. That made their hard-line negotiating more effective as the year wore on.
Democrats became more eager to reach accords on issues such as energy after the Thanksgiving break, administration officials said. Meanwhile, with each victory -- on war funding, on foreign- intelligence wiretapping and on the proposed expansion of a children's health-insurance program -- Republicans on Capitol Hill gained more confidence.
"I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done," Mr. Bush said yesterday at a news conference.
Meeting with reporters this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats might have raised expectations too high in their attempts to cut off Iraq-war funding. Some top Democrats said they were surprised Mr. Bush refused to cave in and negotiate a deal on children's health.
Democrats rejected comparisons with the Republican Congress of 1995, which famously overreached in its clashes with the Clinton administration. Democrats also dismissed the White House view that Mr. Bush's determination helped congressional Republicans regain their political footing.
"Here's the problem: When people say they want a change, the reference point is from George Bush," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic caucus chairman and a top party strategist. "And now the Republicans have decided to get closer in the photo [to] George Bush. I will pay their cab fare every day for them to go to the White House to do that. I'll rent the bus so the whole caucus can go."
White House aides said they are developing contingency plans for next year, aimed at shoring up the economy, if necessary, and perhaps at sweetening voters' sour mood about their finances. The nature and extent of administration proposals depend in part on whether the economy weakens as some experts predict, but two possible prescriptions could include new health-care proposals and Mr. Bush's trademark tax cuts.
The president said his administration will "consider all options" to stimulate the economy. He urged Wall Street banks to record all losses relating to the housing crisis immediately. To tighten wasteful government spending, he said his administration would consider options for overriding some congressional "earmarks."
Democrats say many Republican successes resulted not from the popularity of their positions but from the high procedural barriers to passing legislation in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid's office this week sent out a list of 62 procedural votes that Republicans had forced in the Senate, contending it is a record.
Democrats say they enacted five of their six major initiatives, including raising the minimum wage; passing energy legislation; enacting recommendations of the 9/11 commission; helping make college costs more affordable; and opening up stem-cell research. Mr. Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill, but the rest became law.
While Democrats made big concessions on their spending totals, they say they realigned priorities within those limits. They also say the children's health issue will haunt the White House in the summer when states start to run out of money. And Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would be "relentless" next year in seeking to hold the administration accountable on Iraq.
Sentiment Aside, Bush Scores Wins (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/21/sentiment-aside-bush-scores-wins/) By John D. McKinnon | WSJ Blog, December 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is ending the year with the approval of just one in three voters, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, but he is enjoying a string of legislative successes in Congress, on matters from Iraq-war funding and the federal budget to energy policy, tax increases and mortgage relief.
Bush aides believe they benefited from overreaching by Democrats flush with their 2006 election victory. The White House began the year by laying out relatively modest goals on issues like energy and federal spending. They clung to those goals, even as some Republicans in Congress wavered. White House officials wagered that voters care about concrete results and ultimately would blame Congress, not the White House, if results failed to appear. That made their hard-line negotiating more effective as the year wore on.
Democrats became more eager to reach accords on issues such as energy after the Thanksgiving break, administration officials said. Meanwhile, with each victory -- on war funding, on foreign- intelligence wiretapping and on the proposed expansion of a children's health-insurance program -- Republicans on Capitol Hill gained more confidence.
"I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done," Mr. Bush said yesterday at a news conference.
Meeting with reporters this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats might have raised expectations too high in their attempts to cut off Iraq-war funding. Some top Democrats said they were surprised Mr. Bush refused to cave in and negotiate a deal on children's health.
Democrats rejected comparisons with the Republican Congress of 1995, which famously overreached in its clashes with the Clinton administration. Democrats also dismissed the White House view that Mr. Bush's determination helped congressional Republicans regain their political footing.
"Here's the problem: When people say they want a change, the reference point is from George Bush," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic caucus chairman and a top party strategist. "And now the Republicans have decided to get closer in the photo [to] George Bush. I will pay their cab fare every day for them to go to the White House to do that. I'll rent the bus so the whole caucus can go."
White House aides said they are developing contingency plans for next year, aimed at shoring up the economy, if necessary, and perhaps at sweetening voters' sour mood about their finances. The nature and extent of administration proposals depend in part on whether the economy weakens as some experts predict, but two possible prescriptions could include new health-care proposals and Mr. Bush's trademark tax cuts.
The president said his administration will "consider all options" to stimulate the economy. He urged Wall Street banks to record all losses relating to the housing crisis immediately. To tighten wasteful government spending, he said his administration would consider options for overriding some congressional "earmarks."
Democrats say many Republican successes resulted not from the popularity of their positions but from the high procedural barriers to passing legislation in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid's office this week sent out a list of 62 procedural votes that Republicans had forced in the Senate, contending it is a record.
Democrats say they enacted five of their six major initiatives, including raising the minimum wage; passing energy legislation; enacting recommendations of the 9/11 commission; helping make college costs more affordable; and opening up stem-cell research. Mr. Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill, but the rest became law.
While Democrats made big concessions on their spending totals, they say they realigned priorities within those limits. They also say the children's health issue will haunt the White House in the summer when states start to run out of money. And Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would be "relentless" next year in seeking to hold the administration accountable on Iraq.
Sentiment Aside, Bush Scores Wins (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/21/sentiment-aside-bush-scores-wins/) By John D. McKinnon | WSJ Blog, December 21, 2007
more...
alien2006
07-14 03:03 PM
I wouldn't use the word slave so calously. We on H1s are not slaves, we have some restrictions but we are not slaves. I think you need to see some good documentary or better yet read books on slavery.
gomirage
06-07 04:56 PM
The above story should not come as a shock to anyone. This is just economics laws coming to to play. This keep going until the market finds it equilibrium point, where there are enough people that can afford the supply. This can happen in 2 ways. either income rises for people to afford the prices or prices fall low enough for people to buy. High skilled immigration can provide answers in scenario 1, low skilled immigration may be an answer in scenario 2.
more...
sanju
12-17 04:32 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should. Now
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
2010 prince charles and princess
nojoke
04-14 03:02 PM
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
more...
NKR
09-30 02:55 PM
I think a lot of AC21 cases are getting rejected because of the revocation of I140, Companies don't want to keep the people on their list if he/she is not working, because they have to prove the ability to pay for all those people as well. so they are revoking the I140 for people who are not with them anyore to reduce number of people in their list with USCIS.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
hair Prince Charles and Lady
go_guy123
07-28 02:35 PM
Come the November Elections, Dems could lose 10 in Senate..
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
But if you look past history, skilled immigration has had allies when Republican have been in power. Its a wrong notion that h1B/Eb people have that democratic party is for immigrant. Actually Democratci party is for the illegal masses only.
And we are back to square one.
Dejavu 2007/2008 ;
If this happens, no bill will pass, leave alone Immigration Reform.
Republicans will keep sending bills and Obama will Veto 'em.
But if you look past history, skilled immigration has had allies when Republican have been in power. Its a wrong notion that h1B/Eb people have that democratic party is for immigrant. Actually Democratci party is for the illegal masses only.
more...
rahulpaper
03-24 06:29 PM
We may be missing the issue by this infighting (which is not useful to anyone)
I think any firm involved in unethical behavior (immigration / tax/ state laws/employment laws) perspective should get targeted by USCIS/ICE/DOL and mother of all DHS etc.
In my understanding following are the type of employees....
a) Full time employees of large and small Companies like Engineers/Pharmacist/Internal positions/...ex GE/Microsoft/Google/Wellpoint. These guys do not work for "Clients". Usually do not have bench. (there may be some exceptions but minimal unethical behavior is expected).
b) Full time employees who work for large (Big5 and more) and small CONSULTING firms and consult to other organization... They work for specific project at a "client". Get paid at all times when on project and and on bench. (minimal unlawful activity)
c) Full time employees of small mom and pop firms (small business/ grocery store/restaurants etc) Get paid a salary but a lot of perk (which are not on w2 in order to save taxes...and that is unethical behavior).
d) Employee (may be not full time) focused on work at "Client". They are not full time because they do not get paid when they are not on project. Usually smaller "consulting" firms (i would prefer to call them "contracting" firms) do this. There may be many many layers of contracting firms. Each is involved in some sort of unlawful activity.
I think USCIS should/will go after folks involved in unlawful activities like untaxed money paid...wrong skills listed etc etc etc......Lastly, Just because one was able to do this before does not mean it was legal...
Stop the infighting......do not generalize...if you want to generalize...generalize only on 1 dimension...LAWFUL vs.UNLAWFUL
My 2 cents...
I think any firm involved in unethical behavior (immigration / tax/ state laws/employment laws) perspective should get targeted by USCIS/ICE/DOL and mother of all DHS etc.
In my understanding following are the type of employees....
a) Full time employees of large and small Companies like Engineers/Pharmacist/Internal positions/...ex GE/Microsoft/Google/Wellpoint. These guys do not work for "Clients". Usually do not have bench. (there may be some exceptions but minimal unethical behavior is expected).
b) Full time employees who work for large (Big5 and more) and small CONSULTING firms and consult to other organization... They work for specific project at a "client". Get paid at all times when on project and and on bench. (minimal unlawful activity)
c) Full time employees of small mom and pop firms (small business/ grocery store/restaurants etc) Get paid a salary but a lot of perk (which are not on w2 in order to save taxes...and that is unethical behavior).
d) Employee (may be not full time) focused on work at "Client". They are not full time because they do not get paid when they are not on project. Usually smaller "consulting" firms (i would prefer to call them "contracting" firms) do this. There may be many many layers of contracting firms. Each is involved in some sort of unlawful activity.
I think USCIS should/will go after folks involved in unlawful activities like untaxed money paid...wrong skills listed etc etc etc......Lastly, Just because one was able to do this before does not mean it was legal...
Stop the infighting......do not generalize...if you want to generalize...generalize only on 1 dimension...LAWFUL vs.UNLAWFUL
My 2 cents...
hot and Kate#39;s cake look like?
Macaca
05-01 08:29 AM
Lobbyists Who Bundle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001506.html) -- Their fundraising for congressional candidates should be disclosed, Tuesday, May 1, 2007
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
more...
house Royal Wedding 1981: Street
masaternyc
05-15 07:41 PM
I think mbdriver is absolutely right, this would stop the exploitation of greedy consultancies and every one gets a fair chance.
tattoo Charles and Princess Diana
Macaca
12-30 06:41 PM
India vs. China in 2010 (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/30/india-vs-china-in-2010/) By Tripti Lahiri | IndiaRealTime
Economists and western political leaders love to compare India and China, and it�s an understandably irresistible comparison: They�re both rising Asian economies with more than a billion people, and neighbors to boot.
On India Real Time we�ve done a little of that ourselves from time to time.
If you�re pressed for time we can sum it up like this: China has more of everything (except poor people.) If you�re not, here are five blogs that stacked India and China up against each other on different indicators in the past year.
Warren Buffett: The billionaire from Omaha so far has appeared to be leaning a bit more towards China, at least in terms of investments. Mr. Buffett�s company, Berkshire Hathaway Co., holds a sizeable stake in Chinese battery and auto-maker BYD Co. And Mr. Buffett visited in September, along with Bill Gates, hoping to convince Chinese billionaires to give away more of their wealth to charity. The love is returned, with a Chinese man having paid a record $2.1 million to have a one-on-one lunch with the investing wizard.
Mr. Buffett has said that he�d like to invest in India but his plans have been stymied by caps on foreign holdings in insurance.
However, India can at least look forward to hosting him in the new year. The billionaire announced at a shareholders� meeting this year, in response to a question from a young Indian-American, that he plans to visit India in 2011, perhaps in March.
The big-ticket event: India hosted the Commonwealth Games in October, China hosted the Asian Games in November. Of course, China�s already hosted the Olympics�and how�so it hardly seems fair to compare the two.
But we did anyway. The news coverage of the Indian Games was rife with words like �delays,� �corruption,� �shambles� (we�re pretty sure that was the British press) and �filthy� until the opening night extravaganza quelled criticism for a bit.
China, it appeared, had lovely, shiny venues ready to go about five months ahead of the event, so it could spend the final days flicking away little specks of dust from its Games merchandise.
Their middle classes: According to a report on Asia�s middle classes this year, India still has about 650 million people living on under $2 dollars a day measured in 2005 purchasing parity dollars.
China now has less than 100 million living on that amount. Yet there was a time, as recently as the 1990s, when the two countries had similar numbers of poor. China has just done a better job of lifting people from that bracket into the middle class, and not just onto the next rung �the $2 to $4 range, where a majority of India�s middle class folks fall.
The majority of Chinese now fall in the �mid middle class� category that can spend $5 to $10, a group whose numbers appear to have quadrupled between 1995 and 2007.
But don�t blame the slower rate of reduction in poverty on India�s political system, says John Lee of the Sydney-based think-tank Center for Independent Studies.
The economy, stupid: China is still a much bigger economy than India, even though the two countries have roughly similar numbers of people. At a Hindustan Times conference on India, Shashi Ruia, chairman of Essar Group, compared the two countries on steel production, car production and trade.
As we already said, China does more of everything. The gap is undoubtedly glaring on roads, electricity production, trains and other infrastructure.
Surfing: India�s and China�s online populations belong to different worlds, judging by their Google searches. India appears to be firmly embedded in the English-speaking western world, looking for products like Nokia and applications like Facebook, Yahoo! and YouTube, although when it comes to films, it�s all Bollywood. China seemed to be the reverse�relying largely on Chinese applications but much more likely to seek out Hollywood films. They did have this much in common though: outr� pop star Lady Gaga.
India and China in 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576050850667532420.html) IndiaRealTime
Economists and western political leaders love to compare India and China, and it�s an understandably irresistible comparison: They�re both rising Asian economies with more than a billion people, and neighbors to boot.
On India Real Time we�ve done a little of that ourselves from time to time.
If you�re pressed for time we can sum it up like this: China has more of everything (except poor people.) If you�re not, here are five blogs that stacked India and China up against each other on different indicators in the past year.
Warren Buffett: The billionaire from Omaha so far has appeared to be leaning a bit more towards China, at least in terms of investments. Mr. Buffett�s company, Berkshire Hathaway Co., holds a sizeable stake in Chinese battery and auto-maker BYD Co. And Mr. Buffett visited in September, along with Bill Gates, hoping to convince Chinese billionaires to give away more of their wealth to charity. The love is returned, with a Chinese man having paid a record $2.1 million to have a one-on-one lunch with the investing wizard.
Mr. Buffett has said that he�d like to invest in India but his plans have been stymied by caps on foreign holdings in insurance.
However, India can at least look forward to hosting him in the new year. The billionaire announced at a shareholders� meeting this year, in response to a question from a young Indian-American, that he plans to visit India in 2011, perhaps in March.
The big-ticket event: India hosted the Commonwealth Games in October, China hosted the Asian Games in November. Of course, China�s already hosted the Olympics�and how�so it hardly seems fair to compare the two.
But we did anyway. The news coverage of the Indian Games was rife with words like �delays,� �corruption,� �shambles� (we�re pretty sure that was the British press) and �filthy� until the opening night extravaganza quelled criticism for a bit.
China, it appeared, had lovely, shiny venues ready to go about five months ahead of the event, so it could spend the final days flicking away little specks of dust from its Games merchandise.
Their middle classes: According to a report on Asia�s middle classes this year, India still has about 650 million people living on under $2 dollars a day measured in 2005 purchasing parity dollars.
China now has less than 100 million living on that amount. Yet there was a time, as recently as the 1990s, when the two countries had similar numbers of poor. China has just done a better job of lifting people from that bracket into the middle class, and not just onto the next rung �the $2 to $4 range, where a majority of India�s middle class folks fall.
The majority of Chinese now fall in the �mid middle class� category that can spend $5 to $10, a group whose numbers appear to have quadrupled between 1995 and 2007.
But don�t blame the slower rate of reduction in poverty on India�s political system, says John Lee of the Sydney-based think-tank Center for Independent Studies.
The economy, stupid: China is still a much bigger economy than India, even though the two countries have roughly similar numbers of people. At a Hindustan Times conference on India, Shashi Ruia, chairman of Essar Group, compared the two countries on steel production, car production and trade.
As we already said, China does more of everything. The gap is undoubtedly glaring on roads, electricity production, trains and other infrastructure.
Surfing: India�s and China�s online populations belong to different worlds, judging by their Google searches. India appears to be firmly embedded in the English-speaking western world, looking for products like Nokia and applications like Facebook, Yahoo! and YouTube, although when it comes to films, it�s all Bollywood. China seemed to be the reverse�relying largely on Chinese applications but much more likely to seek out Hollywood films. They did have this much in common though: outr� pop star Lady Gaga.
India and China in 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576050850667532420.html) IndiaRealTime
more...
pictures tattoo princess diana and
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
dresses dresses prince charles and
xyzgc
12-22 11:35 PM
Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
more...
makeup prince charles and princess
gcisadawg
12-27 12:04 AM
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
girlfriend Charles and Princess Diana
sanju
12-17 03:08 PM
This is exactly I hate. To divert focus of terrorism to Hindu group, Muslim leader comes out - WOW!
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
Marphad,
In the recent past, I expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not faded, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to discuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
Sounds like LeT informed Hindu group in advance that they are going to attack so as a by-product they can kill Karkare. Ha ha ha.
Times Of India Headline: Antulay raises doubts over Karkare's killing
Marphad,
In the recent past, I expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not faded, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to discuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
hairstyles Royal Wedding: Princess Diana
vamsi_poondla
10-01 04:17 PM
This is off-topic..but you need to think of small businesses that keep wages for < 10 employees etc in their accounts.
Thats because the rich folks all of sudden who have more then 100k in their accounts felt unsecured and obviously the US government for the rich is helping the rich.
Coming to the topic, how many think that Sen Obama (as Prez Obama) will help our cause in case there is a CIR or piece meal EB provisions.
Thats because the rich folks all of sudden who have more then 100k in their accounts felt unsecured and obviously the US government for the rich is helping the rich.
Coming to the topic, how many think that Sen Obama (as Prez Obama) will help our cause in case there is a CIR or piece meal EB provisions.
rockstart
07-14 08:28 AM
In the letter Phani mentions DOL asked companies to file EB3 instead of EB2 because of slow economy in 2001-2002. Is there any official communication regarding this? According to my understanding of the process and rules. It is job requirement that drives the labor category (EB2 or EB3). Most jobs require bachelors degree with some experience and hence are classified as EB3. There are other jobs that need more skills ( according to employer and endorsed by DOL) which also demand little more salary. These get qualified as EB2 and then there are speacialist jobs that require very highly qualified people which are EB1. Its employers responsiblity to convince the DOL in labor and I140 stage that he needs a guy for a specialist job (EB2) and that he can afford to pay the candidate. Whether economy is slow or Fast if as an employer I have the money to pay the candidate and I have a need for his skills I can file and definately get my EB2 approved. I think what happened in 2001 was since economy was slow and companies were not doing great financially the lawyers must have cautioned the employers against filing EB2 since DOL could audit it and if comapnies are not doing good they might not be able to justify the Eb2 salaries. That is my guess please correct me if I am wrong. DOL will never advice companies to file EB2 or EB3 their job is to validate the job requirement A2P and Candidates qualifications.
JunRN
06-07 02:16 PM
Again, we are not recommending against buying a house, which everyone should do at a point in our lives, but it's unsafe to bank on it, as a sound investment.
That's true. We should not look at buying a house as a sound investment because it is really not. I bought a house for my own happiness and satisfaction of a living a nice life in my lifetime.
What would I do with the tons of money invested somewhere else while I live in an apartment? Most probably, I would just spend it on vacation, travel the whole world, or probably lose some of the returns in buying a nice home at inflated price in the future.
That's true. We should not look at buying a house as a sound investment because it is really not. I bought a house for my own happiness and satisfaction of a living a nice life in my lifetime.
What would I do with the tons of money invested somewhere else while I live in an apartment? Most probably, I would just spend it on vacation, travel the whole world, or probably lose some of the returns in buying a nice home at inflated price in the future.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий