He bought his house after he got a job offer from his mentor�Ben Graham, when he could afford it. Prior to that he was renting. He purchased a five-bedroom stucco house in Omaha, where he still lives, for $31,500. Guess how much that house is worth now?
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
wallpaper hair dresses and Shia LaBeouf
But doing circles doesn't make it any less complex...one long post or may be few more (if one had something new to say ) would be any day better than doing circles. Anyways suit yourself if you are getting a kick out of it.
Thank you.
I try to avoid long posts, as well as obviously silly ones. I also pick and choose sometimes.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
Thank you.
I try to avoid long posts, as well as obviously silly ones. I also pick and choose sometimes.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
agree with Jung.lee. if you are in california or florida ..it definitely makes sense to wait. MSN reported that lot of people are just walking away ..
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
2011 Karolyn Pho Is Shia LaBeouf#39;s
If that's what your experience has been, its good news.
Overall, my experience has been completely opposite but if most Pakistanis are anti-terrorism as you say, half the battle is already won. I am also beginning to a get a sense that this has embarrased lot of muslims....and its set them thinking.
However, how do you propose we bring the terrorists to book? Attack Pakistan? Bomb the terrorist camps out? Wait for another attack to happen, wait for your own family in Mumbai to be wiped out? And exchange hateful words on IV? Release the terrorists in exchange for political hostages or fedd them dal, chapatis in Indian prisons?
Justice doesn't come magically or does it?
Well, one thing I can think of is how we treat the dead terrorists. In case of Parliament, Ashkardam and Mumbai attack, security forces killed the terrorists while they were killing innocents. As usual, Pakistan disowned them.
Publicise very very heavily and spread the word that these dead bodies would be given non-islamic burial. Hit where it hurts them...After giving non-islamic rites, spread the word that next terrorist that gets killed would get more drastic treatment.
BUT ensure that this treatment would be only for the foreign terrorists who are killed by security forces while doing their act and that are disowned by their country. It can be easily misused also. This should ONLY be done if nobody claims ownership of the body.
The story we hear about Kasab is that he was a looser and a petty criminal who was brainwashed. If he and his ilks are willing to get brainwashed religiously then they can not discount the effect of propaganda about non-islamic rites for their dead body and possibly it might deter them from taking that ultimate step.
Take a survey among the Muslims in Bombay to see if they support giving non-islamic rites for the 'orphaned' dead terrorists. I'm sure most of the sensible Muslims are outraged and they would agree to it especially after seeing what they saw on the TV. Before the killer's gun, there is no religion but only the intention to kill.
Overall, my experience has been completely opposite but if most Pakistanis are anti-terrorism as you say, half the battle is already won. I am also beginning to a get a sense that this has embarrased lot of muslims....and its set them thinking.
However, how do you propose we bring the terrorists to book? Attack Pakistan? Bomb the terrorist camps out? Wait for another attack to happen, wait for your own family in Mumbai to be wiped out? And exchange hateful words on IV? Release the terrorists in exchange for political hostages or fedd them dal, chapatis in Indian prisons?
Justice doesn't come magically or does it?
Well, one thing I can think of is how we treat the dead terrorists. In case of Parliament, Ashkardam and Mumbai attack, security forces killed the terrorists while they were killing innocents. As usual, Pakistan disowned them.
Publicise very very heavily and spread the word that these dead bodies would be given non-islamic burial. Hit where it hurts them...After giving non-islamic rites, spread the word that next terrorist that gets killed would get more drastic treatment.
BUT ensure that this treatment would be only for the foreign terrorists who are killed by security forces while doing their act and that are disowned by their country. It can be easily misused also. This should ONLY be done if nobody claims ownership of the body.
The story we hear about Kasab is that he was a looser and a petty criminal who was brainwashed. If he and his ilks are willing to get brainwashed religiously then they can not discount the effect of propaganda about non-islamic rites for their dead body and possibly it might deter them from taking that ultimate step.
Take a survey among the Muslims in Bombay to see if they support giving non-islamic rites for the 'orphaned' dead terrorists. I'm sure most of the sensible Muslims are outraged and they would agree to it especially after seeing what they saw on the TV. Before the killer's gun, there is no religion but only the intention to kill.
I suggest you stop looking at national level figures if you are seeking accurate information. Look at the specific neighborhood you have mind and you may find that the situation there is not exactly what is shown on CNN.
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
what is DFW area (is it dallas ) ? I agree with what you say but in 90 % of the areas it will fall.
In the end people have to take their own decisions and live with it (and I guess thats why many (who have already bought houses) are supporting home ownership) ..that is logical ..no one likes to admit a mistake (not saying it is a mistake).
my views and thinking is clear on this ..why should I buy something now at a high price ..knowing that it has a good chance of falling down by 10 - 15 %.
(And on top of it ..when I have to deal with USCIS).
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
what is DFW area (is it dallas ) ? I agree with what you say but in 90 % of the areas it will fall.
In the end people have to take their own decisions and live with it (and I guess thats why many (who have already bought houses) are supporting home ownership) ..that is logical ..no one likes to admit a mistake (not saying it is a mistake).
my views and thinking is clear on this ..why should I buy something now at a high price ..knowing that it has a good chance of falling down by 10 - 15 %.
(And on top of it ..when I have to deal with USCIS).
In China, Crime Is Kept Quiet, Except on TV
The country remains safe by Western standards, but crime is more common and data are scarce (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576349181022278452.html)
By JAMES T. AREDDY | Wall Street Journal
Last June, hours after her students went home, Sunny Shi, the principal at a kindergarten in Shanghai's Pudong district, was bludgeoned to death in her office. The suspect was another school employee.
Officially, it was as if the murder never happened. Not a word was reported publicly by Shanghai police or local media. As talk circulated among parents, the school's administrators offered trauma counseling but requested their silence. "Now the case is under police investigation," the chief administrator said by email, and "we regret that we cannot provide any details."
The treatment of this case was not unusual. All across China, authorities are thought to hush up episodes like Ms. Shi's killing, which explains in large part why no one knows how much crime occurs in the world's most populous nation. But few doubt that crime is increasing as economic growth divides rich from poor and China permits more personal mobility.
"In the era of Mao, China was known as a virtually crime-free society," says Steven F. Messner, a University of Albany sociology professor who studies criminality. "To get rich is glorious" is the philosophy today, he added, "but there would be a darker side in terms of crime."
China's national crime statistics show a sharp escalation in cases over the past decade, led in particular by non-violent larceny, like bicycle theft and purse snatching. But, as in the U.S., the official numbers also point to steep declines in violent crime, with the murder rate dropping by half between 2000 and 2009.
Experts consider China's crime statistics both problematic and politicized. They also generally agree that the country remains safe by Western standards. Dark streets don't imply danger here.
Evidence abounds, however, that the Communist Party leadership's ideal of a "harmonious society" remains a target, not the reality. In China's growing cities, aluminum bars over windows and doors make most apartments resemble jails. Homeowners are snapping up security devices like cameras and alarms.
Anxious about kidnapping, China's newly wealthy often drive bullet-proof Land Rovers and hire kung fu masters from Shaolin Temple as security agents.
Television contributes a fear factor with real-crime shows modeled on "America's Most Wanted" and "Cops." China Central Television says its law-and-order channel grabs more viewers than its sports stations. Every day, CCTV's one-hour documentary "Legal Report" follows detectives as they crack sensational abduction, extortion and robbery cases.
Its coverage of a spate of apparently random attacks on seven women this year in Hebei province, for instance, featured the nighttime capture of 23-year-old Zhang Yunshuai. His foldable knife decorated with a butterfly was shown as evidence. He was led to a subsequent interview wearing a reflective orange prison vest and cuffed at the wrists and ankles, where he tilted his shaved head and muttered, "because women break my heart."
Shorter installments drew on security cameras that captured a thief shielding his pilfering hand beneath a menu in a crowded Beijing restaurant and thugs casing hotel lobbies for handbags.
On these true-life crime shows, "the man" consistently finds his perp. A popular notion holds that the censors permit these shows about China's criminal underworld because they allow the leadership to demonstrate how the pervasive surveillance of the government equates to swift justice.
Canadian Debra O'Brien got an up-close look at China's criminal justice system after her 22-year-old daughter Diana was stabbed to death three years ago in Shanghai, a bombshell case just weeks before the start of the 2008 Olympics. Authorities quickly won a confession from Chen Jun, a penniless 18-year-old migrant from rural Anhui province. Mr. Chen admitted he struggled with the aspiring model during his bungled attempt to burgle her apartment, located steps from a tea shop that recently fired him.
Ms. O'Brien left impressed. She received extensive briefings by senior police and personal copies of forensic photos. The judge even sought her opinion about a death sentence for Mr. Chen. She had a face-to-face with the apologetic killer.
"It was all shocking and horrific, but everything was done really respectfully and transparently," Ms. O'Brien said by telephone. "You don't feel there is a lot of ego going on. People are doing their jobs."
But the public wasn't offered many details. Ms. O'Brien herself admits she isn't sure of what happened to Mr. Chen but believes he became eligible for release two months ago. Mr. Chen's lawyer says he is serving life.
Pi Yijun, a professor of criminal justice at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, says that he sees crime rising and getting more violent, which he attributes to anger and frustration among society's have-nots. "The accepted mindset seems, 'fists are more powerful than reason,'" he said.
But in a rare 2004 survey of crime victimization, centered on the northern city Tianjin, the University of Albany's Mr. Messner found that few people were touched personally by crimes worse than a stolen bicycle. He credits traditional features of Chinese society. "You still have a much more communitarian orientation than the extreme individualism you see in the U.S.," he said.
China Clamps Down in Bid to Halt Protests in Inner Mongolia (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576353353518093630.html) By BRIAN SPEGELE | Wall Street Journal
China tries to avert Inner Mongolia protests (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-mongolia-protests-20110530,0,3895402.story) By Barbara Demick | Los Angeles Times
The China Story Darkens (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3223&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Once Again, U.S. Finds China Isn�t Manipulating Its Currency (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/global/28currency.html) By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM | The New York Times
The country remains safe by Western standards, but crime is more common and data are scarce (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576349181022278452.html)
By JAMES T. AREDDY | Wall Street Journal
Last June, hours after her students went home, Sunny Shi, the principal at a kindergarten in Shanghai's Pudong district, was bludgeoned to death in her office. The suspect was another school employee.
Officially, it was as if the murder never happened. Not a word was reported publicly by Shanghai police or local media. As talk circulated among parents, the school's administrators offered trauma counseling but requested their silence. "Now the case is under police investigation," the chief administrator said by email, and "we regret that we cannot provide any details."
The treatment of this case was not unusual. All across China, authorities are thought to hush up episodes like Ms. Shi's killing, which explains in large part why no one knows how much crime occurs in the world's most populous nation. But few doubt that crime is increasing as economic growth divides rich from poor and China permits more personal mobility.
"In the era of Mao, China was known as a virtually crime-free society," says Steven F. Messner, a University of Albany sociology professor who studies criminality. "To get rich is glorious" is the philosophy today, he added, "but there would be a darker side in terms of crime."
China's national crime statistics show a sharp escalation in cases over the past decade, led in particular by non-violent larceny, like bicycle theft and purse snatching. But, as in the U.S., the official numbers also point to steep declines in violent crime, with the murder rate dropping by half between 2000 and 2009.
Experts consider China's crime statistics both problematic and politicized. They also generally agree that the country remains safe by Western standards. Dark streets don't imply danger here.
Evidence abounds, however, that the Communist Party leadership's ideal of a "harmonious society" remains a target, not the reality. In China's growing cities, aluminum bars over windows and doors make most apartments resemble jails. Homeowners are snapping up security devices like cameras and alarms.
Anxious about kidnapping, China's newly wealthy often drive bullet-proof Land Rovers and hire kung fu masters from Shaolin Temple as security agents.
Television contributes a fear factor with real-crime shows modeled on "America's Most Wanted" and "Cops." China Central Television says its law-and-order channel grabs more viewers than its sports stations. Every day, CCTV's one-hour documentary "Legal Report" follows detectives as they crack sensational abduction, extortion and robbery cases.
Its coverage of a spate of apparently random attacks on seven women this year in Hebei province, for instance, featured the nighttime capture of 23-year-old Zhang Yunshuai. His foldable knife decorated with a butterfly was shown as evidence. He was led to a subsequent interview wearing a reflective orange prison vest and cuffed at the wrists and ankles, where he tilted his shaved head and muttered, "because women break my heart."
Shorter installments drew on security cameras that captured a thief shielding his pilfering hand beneath a menu in a crowded Beijing restaurant and thugs casing hotel lobbies for handbags.
On these true-life crime shows, "the man" consistently finds his perp. A popular notion holds that the censors permit these shows about China's criminal underworld because they allow the leadership to demonstrate how the pervasive surveillance of the government equates to swift justice.
Canadian Debra O'Brien got an up-close look at China's criminal justice system after her 22-year-old daughter Diana was stabbed to death three years ago in Shanghai, a bombshell case just weeks before the start of the 2008 Olympics. Authorities quickly won a confession from Chen Jun, a penniless 18-year-old migrant from rural Anhui province. Mr. Chen admitted he struggled with the aspiring model during his bungled attempt to burgle her apartment, located steps from a tea shop that recently fired him.
Ms. O'Brien left impressed. She received extensive briefings by senior police and personal copies of forensic photos. The judge even sought her opinion about a death sentence for Mr. Chen. She had a face-to-face with the apologetic killer.
"It was all shocking and horrific, but everything was done really respectfully and transparently," Ms. O'Brien said by telephone. "You don't feel there is a lot of ego going on. People are doing their jobs."
But the public wasn't offered many details. Ms. O'Brien herself admits she isn't sure of what happened to Mr. Chen but believes he became eligible for release two months ago. Mr. Chen's lawyer says he is serving life.
Pi Yijun, a professor of criminal justice at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, says that he sees crime rising and getting more violent, which he attributes to anger and frustration among society's have-nots. "The accepted mindset seems, 'fists are more powerful than reason,'" he said.
But in a rare 2004 survey of crime victimization, centered on the northern city Tianjin, the University of Albany's Mr. Messner found that few people were touched personally by crimes worse than a stolen bicycle. He credits traditional features of Chinese society. "You still have a much more communitarian orientation than the extreme individualism you see in the U.S.," he said.
China Clamps Down in Bid to Halt Protests in Inner Mongolia (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576353353518093630.html) By BRIAN SPEGELE | Wall Street Journal
China tries to avert Inner Mongolia protests (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-mongolia-protests-20110530,0,3895402.story) By Barbara Demick | Los Angeles Times
The China Story Darkens (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3223&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Once Again, U.S. Finds China Isn�t Manipulating Its Currency (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/global/28currency.html) By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM | The New York Times
Muslim World and Non-Muslim World.
Allothers saying abt secularism is just BS. I seriously doubt if the secular credentials will ever come from the heart.
All the muslims are now united. And the ignorant ones are brain washed to become Jihadis.
Problem is going to be more acute in the next 15-20 yrs. All these so called idiots( Jihadis, my balls), getting killed are leaving behind tonnes of kids. They will become even more fanatic and will go on rampage once they reach their teen age or youth state. How do we stop this cancerous issue is a trillion dollar question. The extent of hatred among these misguided youths have reached such a state, like a mad dog. Only treatment is to wipre them out.
Unfortunately like cancer, there is no cure to this problem either.
Countries like Israel, will kill a few muslims, all these false secular credential holding country will raise a hue and cry, and the war will stop. Will they succeed in even stopping the further malignant growth of this evil culture ?
I honestly think not possible. These homo mullahs, are hiding in the schools thinking its safe to attack the enemy from a UN school compund. And our IV friend, ID" RefugeeNew" is saying Isrel killed innocent kids.
Wht the f*** these Hamas guys dont openly fight with Israel. A terrorist organisation, by intimidating the people, was able to form a govt. NEither the govt nor the people who elected them as ovt, has no place in this free loving society or world.
I would like to ask Mr "RefugeeNew", about any comments on talibanisation of Afganistan. Can he explain abt the "Sharia Law".
You want to hear my views. Or even the world's opinion on this. "You idiot b****rd".
Allothers saying abt secularism is just BS. I seriously doubt if the secular credentials will ever come from the heart.
All the muslims are now united. And the ignorant ones are brain washed to become Jihadis.
Problem is going to be more acute in the next 15-20 yrs. All these so called idiots( Jihadis, my balls), getting killed are leaving behind tonnes of kids. They will become even more fanatic and will go on rampage once they reach their teen age or youth state. How do we stop this cancerous issue is a trillion dollar question. The extent of hatred among these misguided youths have reached such a state, like a mad dog. Only treatment is to wipre them out.
Unfortunately like cancer, there is no cure to this problem either.
Countries like Israel, will kill a few muslims, all these false secular credential holding country will raise a hue and cry, and the war will stop. Will they succeed in even stopping the further malignant growth of this evil culture ?
I honestly think not possible. These homo mullahs, are hiding in the schools thinking its safe to attack the enemy from a UN school compund. And our IV friend, ID" RefugeeNew" is saying Isrel killed innocent kids.
Wht the f*** these Hamas guys dont openly fight with Israel. A terrorist organisation, by intimidating the people, was able to form a govt. NEither the govt nor the people who elected them as ovt, has no place in this free loving society or world.
I would like to ask Mr "RefugeeNew", about any comments on talibanisation of Afganistan. Can he explain abt the "Sharia Law".
You want to hear my views. Or even the world's opinion on this. "You idiot b****rd".
2010 2011 Shia LaBeouf shia labeouf
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
Now worst thing is that Lion can not change his job profile till he gets the green card. He will be forced to act like a monkey so that it matches with his monkey job profile mentioned in his PERM application. All he can hope for is to invoke AC21 after couple of years to join a new zoo, that too on a similar job profile. :D:D Gurus what are the Lion's options at this point of time?? :D:D:
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
hair Apaixonada: Shia LaBeouf
UN I think you are hyping up the current situation too much.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
Tell us how the world should understand this attack on Mumbai, Genius.
What is your experience with secret service and snipers? You seem to be so sure about that let's see your expertise on that.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
What is your experience with secret service and snipers? You seem to be so sure about that let's see your expertise on that.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
hot Shia LaBeouf involved in bar
Well I tend to go by the facts:
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
house Shia LaBeouf shirtless walk
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
tattoo shia-labeouf-shirtless-walk-
Both L1 and H1 visa holders pay taxes just like any othe US Citizen
pictures Green With Shia LaBeouf,
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses Image selenashialabeouf.jpg
In modern times, wars between nations are not started in days or weeks. Wars are not based on one event. There is a systematic three stage process to go to war and for a nation to convince the majority of the society/nation that the other guy is pure evil and your mortal enemy. Society in Pakistan is based on their haterade towards Indians. For many years children in Pakistan were taught that Indians are evil, their belief system is barbaric, and their existence means that Islam is in danger. That was the reason some of us saw posts on this forum talking about sati system in Hinduism or some others Pakistanis saying that Hindus are attacking Muslims in India, and then other Pakistanis talking about Modi, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The first step for creating a war involves propaganda within the population of the country that your enemy is evil. Pakistan has been doing this preparation very systematically for sometime.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
makeup including Shia LaBeouf,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/21/EDGDOILMUV1.DTL
girlfriend shia labeouf 2011 mtv movie
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
Excellent article!
Excellent article!
hairstyles shia labeouf 2011 mtv movie
retrogression is there was no unified voice to atleast speak out, when the serious problems that the legal immigrants are facing was anticipated, write about these issues. Now we have one in IV.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
Could Congress Be Waking Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19mann.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=42615f161ac4daf2&ei=5087%0A) By THOMAS E. MANN, MOLLY REYNOLDS and NIGEL HOLMES | NY Times, Jan 19
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
Actually; I didn't think it was courageous at all. I had to practice what I preach.
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
