acecupid
08-05 03:15 PM
Seems like a lot of emotions running high on this thread!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
wallpaper CSCOPE Social Studies
nk2006
09-30 02:59 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.
That is right - most of these rejections seems to be because of I140 revocations - but as per AC21 this should not result in outright rejection and candidate needs to receive a NOID - this is a result of mis-interpretation of USCIS rules by their own staff and is an administrative issue which needs to be fixed by USCIS.
That is right - most of these rejections seems to be because of I140 revocations - but as per AC21 this should not result in outright rejection and candidate needs to receive a NOID - this is a result of mis-interpretation of USCIS rules by their own staff and is an administrative issue which needs to be fixed by USCIS.
Macaca
09-24 04:30 PM
How To Write To Congress (http://consumerist.com/consumer/your-government/how-to-write-to-congress-302775.php) BY CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER | Consumerist, SEP 23 2007
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
2011 Nagant scope
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...
waitnwatch
10-01 05:35 PM
I think retrogression will improve in the future. Here is why I think so.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
spbpsg
03-25 05:50 PM
is there a website/magazine where i can get list of foreclosed properties?
There is no need to pay website or realtor to find forclosed properties. I have bought forclosed property year ago. Here are tips.
Depending on your location go to any realty websites and search for houses based on your conditions (like price, bd rooms etc). There is always a description for house, if one of following line is part of that description then it is forclosed or bank owned (bank owned means a step before forclosure) :
1) ...addition addendum required...
2) ...subject to third-party approval...
3) ...express finance is provided...
U can do many things without using realtor, use realtor only to see property physically and to do your paperwork. Don't forget to ask 2% commision cash back and never sign commitment doc with realtor, always remember as a buyer u r the king in this market.
There is no need to pay website or realtor to find forclosed properties. I have bought forclosed property year ago. Here are tips.
Depending on your location go to any realty websites and search for houses based on your conditions (like price, bd rooms etc). There is always a description for house, if one of following line is part of that description then it is forclosed or bank owned (bank owned means a step before forclosure) :
1) ...addition addendum required...
2) ...subject to third-party approval...
3) ...express finance is provided...
U can do many things without using realtor, use realtor only to see property physically and to do your paperwork. Don't forget to ask 2% commision cash back and never sign commitment doc with realtor, always remember as a buyer u r the king in this market.
more...
GCapplicant
09-26 09:52 AM
It's really too early to pass judgements What will happen if he comes?
It's sheer poilitics .Immigration discussion is a hot importat topic before election.They can't take chances by supporting this,They have to consider their members first.DEMS major leap after 10 years break.It is going to be good for everyone.
After election is the main chapter.DOL has already agreed they have wasted visas as per OH Law breaking news recently.
Be positive that 2009 will help us all.This negative statement will misdirect our thought.We have our EAD ,Atleast thanks for the Fiasco,we filed out 485.
It's only the visa numbers...if not 1 year,it will be on the road by two years.Cheer up...I myself have negative feelings what will happen to my family future here.I just talk to myself,Whether I have to apply for Canadian PR for back up.It sure does kill our minds.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
It's sheer poilitics .Immigration discussion is a hot importat topic before election.They can't take chances by supporting this,They have to consider their members first.DEMS major leap after 10 years break.It is going to be good for everyone.
After election is the main chapter.DOL has already agreed they have wasted visas as per OH Law breaking news recently.
Be positive that 2009 will help us all.This negative statement will misdirect our thought.We have our EAD ,Atleast thanks for the Fiasco,we filed out 485.
It's only the visa numbers...if not 1 year,it will be on the road by two years.Cheer up...I myself have negative feelings what will happen to my family future here.I just talk to myself,Whether I have to apply for Canadian PR for back up.It sure does kill our minds.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
2010 Cscope
jayleno
08-05 02:44 PM
Guys,
Please stop this sick discussion. Do not allow this kind of divisive tactics to work on us.
Please stop this sick discussion. Do not allow this kind of divisive tactics to work on us.
more...
lfwf
08-06 04:19 PM
I thought you ported pascal's id :)
:D
:D
hair C.SCOPE CS 770 XD NUOVO.
insbaby
03-24 09:07 AM
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
True.
Most of the answers in this thread point that you need to have a good life when you and your kids are young. Not for people who want to get money out of an investment.
Also a reply suggests what you can do in worst case.
Don't count how many days you are going to be in this country, but live every day for you and your family.
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
I just decided its my responsibility to give them a good living environment when they are young if I can. I dont' care about downpayment. If I was good enough to save the downpayment amount in 4 years, surely I can earn it back in 2 years somewhere in worst case scenario.
Credit score? Sorry, I already built the score and bought the home, now I have many other things to worry about in life.
True.
Most of the answers in this thread point that you need to have a good life when you and your kids are young. Not for people who want to get money out of an investment.
Also a reply suggests what you can do in worst case.
Don't count how many days you are going to be in this country, but live every day for you and your family.
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
I just decided its my responsibility to give them a good living environment when they are young if I can. I dont' care about downpayment. If I was good enough to save the downpayment amount in 4 years, surely I can earn it back in 2 years somewhere in worst case scenario.
Credit score? Sorry, I already built the score and bought the home, now I have many other things to worry about in life.
more...
heywhat
08-02 01:09 PM
So are you not working for company which is processing your GC application?
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
hot Cscope
sledge_hammer
06-05 04:01 PM
A very simple, dumbed down calculation to see which one trumps the other, buying or renting:
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
more...
house hairstyles C SCOPE Curriculum
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
tattoo C-Scope 440XD Metal Detector
GCKaMaara
12-17 05:14 PM
the mumbai incident was a terrible one. the guilty must be punished to the fullest extent, be it people from any background doing it in the name of religion.
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
Any innocent killed must be stopped. My faith is any person who does it or supports it must and will be punished by God.
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
Any innocent killed must be stopped. My faith is any person who does it or supports it must and will be punished by God.
more...
pictures Kliknite pre zväčšenie
validIV
06-25 03:42 PM
You just gave an example of a guy who owns his own house.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
dresses Minelab excalibur 1000/C-scope
xyzgc
12-30 02:23 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
more...
makeup C.Scope CAT Cable Avoidance
suavesandeep
06-26 05:06 PM
puddonhead,
To be FAIR In your calculation should you not include the tax break you would get for buying a home. I know the interest is variable, You will be paying lot of interest in the early years. But maybe we can average say Total Interest Payment/30 = Average Interest paid per year. And use this figure to calculate the average tax break one should expect.
For e.g. Lets say on an average you pay every year 24K in Interest payment for your Mortgage, You would get approx 8k back in tax credits (assuming 30% tax bracket).
So shouldn't your left side be:
(mortgage + property tax - All tax breaks)
Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area :)..
Or should you include some more variables here say if you live in NYC/Bay Area has a thumb rule its ok to pay X% extra compared to the average national trend line ?
If only everybody in bay area used this formula before they bought their home :). Amen.
Well - your approach smells of speculation, which is pretty dangerous!!
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
To be FAIR In your calculation should you not include the tax break you would get for buying a home. I know the interest is variable, You will be paying lot of interest in the early years. But maybe we can average say Total Interest Payment/30 = Average Interest paid per year. And use this figure to calculate the average tax break one should expect.
For e.g. Lets say on an average you pay every year 24K in Interest payment for your Mortgage, You would get approx 8k back in tax credits (assuming 30% tax bracket).
So shouldn't your left side be:
(mortgage + property tax - All tax breaks)
Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area :)..
Or should you include some more variables here say if you live in NYC/Bay Area has a thumb rule its ok to pay X% extra compared to the average national trend line ?
If only everybody in bay area used this formula before they bought their home :). Amen.
Well - your approach smells of speculation, which is pretty dangerous!!
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
girlfriend C.Scope CS5MX Metal Detector
krishna.ahd
12-26 03:31 PM
A full fledged war between India and Pakistan is very very unlikely.
Look at stratfor.com
Look at stratfor.com
hairstyles cscope 0904
xyzgc
01-09 06:58 PM
Online Israel-Hamas war
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478626,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478626,00.html
thuristic
04-18 05:44 PM
Lou Dobbs at CNN is doing a quick vote to justify his oppinions against amnesty. So far, the majority of the vote is "against" rather than "for". I myself am not a big fan of the proposal becauses it deminishes efforts put in by legal immigrats like ourselves but regardless consider it necessary for us to support as it currently is the only bill alive including retrogression relief along with amnesty.
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
sanju
12-18 12:15 PM
Sanju gave very good explanation here.
I'm sure some of the readers would already know what I'm saying in my post and like many of them I almost stayed away from posting but for the benefit of those few ( even if it's one person) who might wonder if Gita could have been doctored I decided to share what I know .Again I felt the need to post because the idea was brought up by Sanju(NO..I'm not accusing you Sanju...nor 'm I preaching Gitaism here.Again it's just for the benefit of that few sincere folks...others can stick to Sanju's version...no harm.)
Hindu society all through the monarchical times was blessed with Enlightened Masters who willfully(for a person who had realized the ultimate truth material positions don't matter) served as subordinates (Mahamantri, ,Rajguru )to the Kings .
These enlightened gurus were the protectors of some of our scriptures(just some because many of the scriptures were outside the intellectual realm of many kings no matter how powerful they were) be it shastras,stotra or sutras.
Now before one goes on a spin with these enlightened masters let me also remind everyone that none of the great works are patented or owned by any king or master(unlike in some societies). They did truly protect our scriptures so they can be passed on to us, leaving these great works for use/abuse (based on the individuals intelligence/intention) popular examples in today's world being yoga/kamasutra (both are great spiritual mechanisms but are greatly misused so much so that one can't name (one of them) without feeling wee bit embarrassed).
If one was to trace the evil practices like caste system they wouldn't find the roots in any of these scriptures. Now these evil practices, I would say were doctored/cooked up by people/kings, but Hindu scriptures were out of the reach of these people.
These scriptures are wired in such a way that to change them one needs to be highly evolved(not just highly educated or filled with dry intelligence) , to understand them one needs to be sincere seeker not professional seeker.
Also Vedic Culture which is way of life, a civilization got reduced to mere religion only after foreigners came to Bharatavarsha (although the basic pillars remain the same..dharma , karma ...)
Thank you.
oh, ya! So just because you follow a specific faith, it has got to be pious, and books of other religions have been doctored. There is nothing new to this view. Every man on this planet adheres to this view.
You see, every book has been changed during the course of human history. It doesn't mean that they were tottaly changed, but in a way there have been elements added and deleted from these books. So there are parts of these books which are good and teach us to love all of humanity and our sorroundings, then there are those parts in each such book, and those parts have been very carefully added by thugs and cheats during the period of time, such that they could keep control and grip on the comman people and at the same time spread their religion/world view. Anything that remotely peaches hate towards anyone cannot be the word of "God", whether it calls people of other religions as Kafirs ordering to kill them, or, whether it calls "non believers" as evil going to helll, or if it implements caste system. They are all the same. The true nature of the supreme being, the creator, is nothing but love and every thought in contradiction to the nature of supreme being is plain false. And older the religion, more the chances of that religion getting docotered by greater number of kings.
You have reasons to accept that these books have been doctored but your ego is not letting you accept that things you have believed in your life could be wrong. Thats not just your problem, any person following any religion has the same problem.
It is your responsibility that you don't pass on this disease on the mankind called religion, to your next generation. For too long the progress of minkind have been hindered by this disease. The progress you see in 21st century is not because of religion, but inspite of it. 99% of all inventions from Tesla's AC current to the first flight of Wright brother, they were all conducted in the country where there is separation of state and religion. I bet you, if religion was part of the consitution of US, no progress would have been possible.
Its time to shed your ego that my religion is pious and others religions are wrong because all oraganized religions are wrong. And even if you want to lean against some religion, try to question every part of every religion that is peached and see it with a critical view. it will become easier for you to separate the diamonds from the dunghill.
.
I'm sure some of the readers would already know what I'm saying in my post and like many of them I almost stayed away from posting but for the benefit of those few ( even if it's one person) who might wonder if Gita could have been doctored I decided to share what I know .Again I felt the need to post because the idea was brought up by Sanju(NO..I'm not accusing you Sanju...nor 'm I preaching Gitaism here.Again it's just for the benefit of that few sincere folks...others can stick to Sanju's version...no harm.)
Hindu society all through the monarchical times was blessed with Enlightened Masters who willfully(for a person who had realized the ultimate truth material positions don't matter) served as subordinates (Mahamantri, ,Rajguru )to the Kings .
These enlightened gurus were the protectors of some of our scriptures(just some because many of the scriptures were outside the intellectual realm of many kings no matter how powerful they were) be it shastras,stotra or sutras.
Now before one goes on a spin with these enlightened masters let me also remind everyone that none of the great works are patented or owned by any king or master(unlike in some societies). They did truly protect our scriptures so they can be passed on to us, leaving these great works for use/abuse (based on the individuals intelligence/intention) popular examples in today's world being yoga/kamasutra (both are great spiritual mechanisms but are greatly misused so much so that one can't name (one of them) without feeling wee bit embarrassed).
If one was to trace the evil practices like caste system they wouldn't find the roots in any of these scriptures. Now these evil practices, I would say were doctored/cooked up by people/kings, but Hindu scriptures were out of the reach of these people.
These scriptures are wired in such a way that to change them one needs to be highly evolved(not just highly educated or filled with dry intelligence) , to understand them one needs to be sincere seeker not professional seeker.
Also Vedic Culture which is way of life, a civilization got reduced to mere religion only after foreigners came to Bharatavarsha (although the basic pillars remain the same..dharma , karma ...)
Thank you.
oh, ya! So just because you follow a specific faith, it has got to be pious, and books of other religions have been doctored. There is nothing new to this view. Every man on this planet adheres to this view.
You see, every book has been changed during the course of human history. It doesn't mean that they were tottaly changed, but in a way there have been elements added and deleted from these books. So there are parts of these books which are good and teach us to love all of humanity and our sorroundings, then there are those parts in each such book, and those parts have been very carefully added by thugs and cheats during the period of time, such that they could keep control and grip on the comman people and at the same time spread their religion/world view. Anything that remotely peaches hate towards anyone cannot be the word of "God", whether it calls people of other religions as Kafirs ordering to kill them, or, whether it calls "non believers" as evil going to helll, or if it implements caste system. They are all the same. The true nature of the supreme being, the creator, is nothing but love and every thought in contradiction to the nature of supreme being is plain false. And older the religion, more the chances of that religion getting docotered by greater number of kings.
You have reasons to accept that these books have been doctored but your ego is not letting you accept that things you have believed in your life could be wrong. Thats not just your problem, any person following any religion has the same problem.
It is your responsibility that you don't pass on this disease on the mankind called religion, to your next generation. For too long the progress of minkind have been hindered by this disease. The progress you see in 21st century is not because of religion, but inspite of it. 99% of all inventions from Tesla's AC current to the first flight of Wright brother, they were all conducted in the country where there is separation of state and religion. I bet you, if religion was part of the consitution of US, no progress would have been possible.
Its time to shed your ego that my religion is pious and others religions are wrong because all oraganized religions are wrong. And even if you want to lean against some religion, try to question every part of every religion that is peached and see it with a critical view. it will become easier for you to separate the diamonds from the dunghill.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment