I agree with you. I am also of the opinion that July Fiasco has actually helped India and China (oversubscribed countries). USCIS might have approved tons of EB2 and EB3 (India and China) applications to use those 60,000 visa numbers. So, India and China might have got a big pie of the 140,000 EB visas.
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
Good to hear that as I am EB2 India with PD 09/2004. Where will EB2 India be in October 07?
Diversity is preferred over Skills and hence there is per country limit at 7%. Many of my colleagues have got their GC being ROW EB2 (from srilanka, nepal, pakistan) and I am very happy for them but at the same time I feel frustrated and disappointed at the system as it discriminates you using your nationality. Nobody can control where they are born then why should they be discriminated based on that factor????
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
Good to hear that as I am EB2 India with PD 09/2004. Where will EB2 India be in October 07?
Diversity is preferred over Skills and hence there is per country limit at 7%. Many of my colleagues have got their GC being ROW EB2 (from srilanka, nepal, pakistan) and I am very happy for them but at the same time I feel frustrated and disappointed at the system as it discriminates you using your nationality. Nobody can control where they are born then why should they be discriminated based on that factor????
wallpaper ridal hairstyles pictures.
Scamsters dictionary (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Scamsters-dictionary/articleshow/7173788.cms) By Dilip Bobb | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
fide champ,
If you can swing it in today's markets, and live through your losses, then go for it! You know your own financial and family situation the best, so only you are in really in the best position to judge what's right.
I am in SoCal but I follow NJ through the following blog: http://njrereport.com/. Hope it helps.
Good luck,
JL
If you can swing it in today's markets, and live through your losses, then go for it! You know your own financial and family situation the best, so only you are in really in the best position to judge what's right.
I am in SoCal but I follow NJ through the following blog: http://njrereport.com/. Hope it helps.
Good luck,
JL
2011 dresses Bridal hairstyles
I remember the 1990's UK housing crunch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7336010.stm
I often call the British "mortgage slaves", that was actually a factor in my move here. I could see people putting every penny they earned into their mortgages. When my parents bought their house 35 years ago, you had to put a hefty deposit down. After the housing crunch of the early 1990's which really killed off the economy (largely because people could not move to where the jobs were because of negative equity). I saw the same happening there again. Even being well paid in the UK does not mean that you can afford more than a cardboard box. Whenever interest rates drop there, housing prices shoot up, I considered an interest rate drop to be a disaster. The majority of the population thought that high house price inflation was great, but didn't consider that either the bubble must burst or their children will never be able to afford a house. People just pay the same percentage of salary into mortgage when interest rates are low, so prices go up. In the UK fixed rate loans are not the norm like here, more normal would be a 35 year variable rate loan (up from 25 years in 1980's). So when interest rates go up people are crippled. I see the UK economy as being underpinned by the emperor's clothes. People get 35 year variable rate mortgages for 125% of value on a salary when they can barely cover interest let alone capital, if one of them (assuming couple - because single cannot afford house) loses job they are screwed.
In the UK a house I could afford would be about 1000 sq ft. Here my house is 1800 sq ft (nicely sized but not McMansion), and net zero energy -- with a huge amount of solar power and ground source heat pump heating http://tinyurl.com/2jzbfq
Then around 2002 I saw the same starting to happen here. I must have brought the British disease here with me!! :eek:
I should have been quarantined :eek:
So other than a rant what's my point:
* Buy something that you can afford, without becoming a mortgage slave.
* Buy something that you really like.
* Buy something that you are prepared to live in for a long time.
* Think of your house as your home, not an investment (or at least a very long term investment -- like 10 years plus).
* Use the down housing market to your advantage to find something that you really like (without over extending yourself).
* You decide what you can afford, but the bank or Mortgage broker. Mortgage broker tried to tell me that I could afford more, I told him where to go, I want to live not just pay mortgage. I would recommend not going above x3 salary or x2.5 for a couple.
If you think this way market timing is less of an issue. It is hard to judge the market timing just right in any market.
Being an energy saving geek, I also recommend buying something with a large south facing roof (for lots of solar panels).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7336010.stm
I often call the British "mortgage slaves", that was actually a factor in my move here. I could see people putting every penny they earned into their mortgages. When my parents bought their house 35 years ago, you had to put a hefty deposit down. After the housing crunch of the early 1990's which really killed off the economy (largely because people could not move to where the jobs were because of negative equity). I saw the same happening there again. Even being well paid in the UK does not mean that you can afford more than a cardboard box. Whenever interest rates drop there, housing prices shoot up, I considered an interest rate drop to be a disaster. The majority of the population thought that high house price inflation was great, but didn't consider that either the bubble must burst or their children will never be able to afford a house. People just pay the same percentage of salary into mortgage when interest rates are low, so prices go up. In the UK fixed rate loans are not the norm like here, more normal would be a 35 year variable rate loan (up from 25 years in 1980's). So when interest rates go up people are crippled. I see the UK economy as being underpinned by the emperor's clothes. People get 35 year variable rate mortgages for 125% of value on a salary when they can barely cover interest let alone capital, if one of them (assuming couple - because single cannot afford house) loses job they are screwed.
In the UK a house I could afford would be about 1000 sq ft. Here my house is 1800 sq ft (nicely sized but not McMansion), and net zero energy -- with a huge amount of solar power and ground source heat pump heating http://tinyurl.com/2jzbfq
Then around 2002 I saw the same starting to happen here. I must have brought the British disease here with me!! :eek:
I should have been quarantined :eek:
So other than a rant what's my point:
* Buy something that you can afford, without becoming a mortgage slave.
* Buy something that you really like.
* Buy something that you are prepared to live in for a long time.
* Think of your house as your home, not an investment (or at least a very long term investment -- like 10 years plus).
* Use the down housing market to your advantage to find something that you really like (without over extending yourself).
* You decide what you can afford, but the bank or Mortgage broker. Mortgage broker tried to tell me that I could afford more, I told him where to go, I want to live not just pay mortgage. I would recommend not going above x3 salary or x2.5 for a couple.
If you think this way market timing is less of an issue. It is hard to judge the market timing just right in any market.
Being an energy saving geek, I also recommend buying something with a large south facing roof (for lots of solar panels).
Does anyone know that the closing has to be before November 30th in order to get this 8K tax benefit?
Thats Correct!
Thats Correct!
I wonder if big names like Mircrosoft and others are aware of this. I am sure they will have a huge loss if this bill went through. May be it is time Bill Gates dropped his gloves and fight for us too.
Bill Gates is very influential but he is one man and can do only so much. I think all the forum members should become active in educating and engaging our friends and employers about this potential disaster.
Bill Gates is very influential but he is one man and can do only so much. I think all the forum members should become active in educating and engaging our friends and employers about this potential disaster.
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
2010 your wedding hair style.
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
With all due respect, just because few people don't like it is no reasons for getting this thread closed..
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
hair Its Cute Wedding Hairstyles
And if you feel your esteemed queue is getting bigger you are more than welcome to leave this place.
And Sir dontcareanymore, who are you to show people out.
Please calm down, its ok if someone has ideas that donot match 100% to your ideas; your decency is in letting people speak and hear them still.
friend.....Donot get angry, please.
what a pity, we donot let anyone talk, speak unless they agree with us and we call ourselves educated, democratic....voice of immigration....
may i dare say ...."we are not even close"..
lets not fight, please. I am not blaming you sir, but the action. so please
donot blast me, i know you are a wonderful person; i am blaming the action not you.
And Sir dontcareanymore, who are you to show people out.
Please calm down, its ok if someone has ideas that donot match 100% to your ideas; your decency is in letting people speak and hear them still.
friend.....Donot get angry, please.
what a pity, we donot let anyone talk, speak unless they agree with us and we call ourselves educated, democratic....voice of immigration....
may i dare say ...."we are not even close"..
lets not fight, please. I am not blaming you sir, but the action. so please
donot blast me, i know you are a wonderful person; i am blaming the action not you.
and to prevent such chasms from forming and getting deeper...we all need to look to IV core for guidance and follow only their Action Items. It is critical or else we will find ourselves with our foot in the mouth.
hot 2009 Wedding Hairstyles
I have brought a house 4 years back after 2 years in this country. It is $500K house. Ss it really "Rent Apartment vs Buy House" ?
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there.
It all depends on the situation, if a person who started this thread can afford to buy a house, wants to buy one, has found a good house in a good location, has got a good deal and if he thinks that not having a GC is the only hurdle, then my suggestion for him would be to buy the house.
Of course every people�s situation is not the same. If I was in CA, probably I would be living in an apartment now. If you can rent a home and think that makes more sense then buying a house, that�s fine too. If someone can buy a house and give it on rent, that�s even better :o)
How about renting a home to provide something good to your family?
With the home values declining I think it makes way more sense to rent the same house (at least in the area I live). If your mortgage payment is only $500 above apartment rent I would say buy. But if you are looking at paying double as mortgage I think its really inflated.
I would like to read more about buying foreclosed properties. I hear there are some good deals out there.
It all depends on the situation, if a person who started this thread can afford to buy a house, wants to buy one, has found a good house in a good location, has got a good deal and if he thinks that not having a GC is the only hurdle, then my suggestion for him would be to buy the house.
Of course every people�s situation is not the same. If I was in CA, probably I would be living in an apartment now. If you can rent a home and think that makes more sense then buying a house, that�s fine too. If someone can buy a house and give it on rent, that�s even better :o)
house free wedding hairstyle
Some paras from Big money creates a new capital city (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/conclusion/index.html?hpid=topnews), By Robert G. Kaiser.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
tattoo Indian Bridal Hairstyles 2011
Hi Manu..
can u pls clarify when u find some time..
from what I understand and you posted, he changed employers from A to B to C.
He reentered the US with a visa stamping of AorB and din't get a new H1 visa stamping with C..is that so..?
but until now 99% of us, are in the same thinking that as long as you have a valid stamping in the passport u r good for rentry..
so they dig and dig into our passports .. ? we ourselves get dizzy looking into all the pages of our passports.
Like UN said..wonder what we/they achieve with lawsuits,but we can expect a lot of digging into our cases during AOS...
(lawsuiting/challenging is no good idea with USCIS/DOS,they will not budge even a mm,they r huge monster govt organizations,it is best to move with the flow and instead work on ideas of allowing to file 485 when dates r not current etc..)
can u pls clarify when u find some time..
from what I understand and you posted, he changed employers from A to B to C.
He reentered the US with a visa stamping of AorB and din't get a new H1 visa stamping with C..is that so..?
but until now 99% of us, are in the same thinking that as long as you have a valid stamping in the passport u r good for rentry..
so they dig and dig into our passports .. ? we ourselves get dizzy looking into all the pages of our passports.
Like UN said..wonder what we/they achieve with lawsuits,but we can expect a lot of digging into our cases during AOS...
(lawsuiting/challenging is no good idea with USCIS/DOS,they will not budge even a mm,they r huge monster govt organizations,it is best to move with the flow and instead work on ideas of allowing to file 485 when dates r not current etc..)
pictures wedding hairstyles disney
This subtlety does not matter. From USCIS point of view, if you entered on Lion Visa you are a Lion, if you came in on Monkey visa you are a monkey. These visas are not based on your genetic makeup, but on the fact that under what category your zoo (employer) filed your visa. Otherwise how come monkeys interfiled and became Lion?? :D:D
I worry about the poor Lion on a Monkey visa...in his anxiety to get a green card and finally be able to roar like a lion again he may also start to suffer from the COLTS disease...poor Lion on a Monkey visa suffering from COLTS!!:D:D:D:D
I worry about the poor Lion on a Monkey visa...in his anxiety to get a green card and finally be able to roar like a lion again he may also start to suffer from the COLTS disease...poor Lion on a Monkey visa suffering from COLTS!!:D:D:D:D
dresses Bridesmaids Wedding Hairstyles
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
makeup Beautiful Wedding Hairstyles
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor.
Just wanted to let you know that the employer has to pay at least the prevailing wage for a starter to qualify the petition. The employer also has to pay a median wage to the H-1B holder that is commensurate with similarly qualified employees in the company. Otherwise the employer could be prosecuted for wage violations.
Norm Matloff's figures are faulty because he measures only the prevailing wage as a yardstick which is the bare minimum for qualification. And then he claims H-1Bs are undercutting American employees. No wonder, if you make calculations with lower figures, on the average, H-1Bs look as if they are getting paid less than American employees. To get the actual picture, Norm needs to know actual wages of H-1B employees, which is not possible because not all employers divulge employee pay. As long as the figures can be taken to one's advantage, we always will have these critics running around with distorted graphs and figures.
One reform Zazona.com should support and fight for in EB Greencards is making the application employee-centric, not employer-centric. Current procedure is in a way bondage to the employer, especially when USCIS takes a long time with multiple stages (read delays) that too not bothering about how long the application has been pending. If USCIS processing improves and they try to reach out to their customers, then a wait of one or two years for Greencard should not be an issue. Infact, I support instant GC proposal in that case.
Regarding the claims of stealing jobs, I see tons of job advertisements weekly. Many of these ads specifically exclude non-sponsorship candidates (read H-1Bs). US citizens have a bigger market and better opportunities than H-1Bs. I am not sure how it is not possible for them to get jobs. As Logiclife mentioned, the unemployment rate is 2% in IT field. Perhaps people are not prepared to move to areas where jobs are growing. I can not specukate any more on that.
Just wanted to let you know that the employer has to pay at least the prevailing wage for a starter to qualify the petition. The employer also has to pay a median wage to the H-1B holder that is commensurate with similarly qualified employees in the company. Otherwise the employer could be prosecuted for wage violations.
Norm Matloff's figures are faulty because he measures only the prevailing wage as a yardstick which is the bare minimum for qualification. And then he claims H-1Bs are undercutting American employees. No wonder, if you make calculations with lower figures, on the average, H-1Bs look as if they are getting paid less than American employees. To get the actual picture, Norm needs to know actual wages of H-1B employees, which is not possible because not all employers divulge employee pay. As long as the figures can be taken to one's advantage, we always will have these critics running around with distorted graphs and figures.
One reform Zazona.com should support and fight for in EB Greencards is making the application employee-centric, not employer-centric. Current procedure is in a way bondage to the employer, especially when USCIS takes a long time with multiple stages (read delays) that too not bothering about how long the application has been pending. If USCIS processing improves and they try to reach out to their customers, then a wait of one or two years for Greencard should not be an issue. Infact, I support instant GC proposal in that case.
Regarding the claims of stealing jobs, I see tons of job advertisements weekly. Many of these ads specifically exclude non-sponsorship candidates (read H-1Bs). US citizens have a bigger market and better opportunities than H-1Bs. I am not sure how it is not possible for them to get jobs. As Logiclife mentioned, the unemployment rate is 2% in IT field. Perhaps people are not prepared to move to areas where jobs are growing. I can not specukate any more on that.
girlfriend Couture Wedding Hairstyles
my only problem is Work contracts.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
hairstyles Modern Wedding Hairstyles
This thread is causing unhealthy division between EB2 and EB3. This thread should be closed and people should concentrate on the call campaign instead on fighting each other.
Prefer to refrain from adding fuel to Sunny's reply as this thread is causing more rift than good.
Agree this thread should be closed and deleted.
Moderator: Is there any way people(ID's) don't contribute, don't get to open new threads if not posting comments( and dots too).
Prefer to refrain from adding fuel to Sunny's reply as this thread is causing more rift than good.
Agree this thread should be closed and deleted.
Moderator: Is there any way people(ID's) don't contribute, don't get to open new threads if not posting comments( and dots too).
Even if terrorism is accepted because someone in their family killed terrorists have to target those people who had killed their family members In what way a child from Bombay was reason for sufferings of Afghanistan or Kashmir? In my view Terrorism was spread by some leaders for their enrichment. You can see lifestyle of LET and other Terrorist group Leaders in Pakistan. They were living in big Mansions with bullet proof cars with multiple Wives at the same time the trained terrorists are killing the innocents at the same dying themselves.
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
Look at stratfor.com
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
