dontcareanymore
08-05 01:37 PM
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.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s ? Not just what their lawyer says.
Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
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.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s ? Not just what their lawyer says.
Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
wallpaper Posted in Celebrity Hairstyles
singhsa3
10-01 05:10 PM
God knows what in store for us. Nothing except our determination is in our favor.
learning01
02-01 09:02 PM
Please give me a link to what you refer, and I will write to Lou-foul mouth. Also, I request you to wirte and update status.
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
2011 short-curly-hairstyles
unitednations
08-02 10:35 PM
You mean the spouse gets 245i benifit even if the spouse was not present here on dec 2000 and came after 2001.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
more...
sandy_anand
05-30 04:56 PM
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Well said Riva2005!
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Well said Riva2005!
alisa
12-27 12:08 AM
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?
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
more...
Macaca
05-13 05:47 PM
Free Ai Weiwei protests are 'condescending'? No, they are about the fear of where China is heading (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100087793/free-ai-weiwei-protests-are-condescending-no-they-are-about-the-fear-of-where-china-is-heading/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph Blog
China is smarting over the negative publicity that has accompanied its arrest of Ai Weiwei. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Mme Fu Ying, who is the former Chinese Ambassador to Britain, said in Hungary yesterday that Europe and America were being ?condescending? towards China by their refusal to just shut up about the arrested artist.
Earlier a hurt-sounding foreign ministry spokesman said China was ?unhappy? and ?baffled? that some countries were trying to treat a ?crime suspect as a hero?.
Both of these highly disingenuous remarks are designed to touch a key nationalist button in China in which all criticisms of China are framed as part of a plot by the waning Old Imperial powers to constrain the :Dglorious rise of the new China:D. It is a seductive narrative, but also a fallacious one that needs to be squashed.
In a globalised economy the US and the EU have a ?common interest? in China?s peaceful rise, and on the evidence of the last few months (you might say years, going back to the crushing of the pre-Olympic Tibetan crackdowns of 2008) they have legitimate cause to be worried about the direction China is taking.
Ai is merely a lightning rod for that concern.
China is absolutely correct that the US and EU have no ?right? to interfere in its judicial affairs, and nor do they seek to. But that doesn?t mean that democratic governments and their citizens don?t have a duty (to themselves, as much as anything else) to speak out about Ai Weiwei, and what his detention might portend.
China talks about Ai being a ?crime suspect?, but the fact that hardly anyone outside China (and a fair number inside China) have any confidence in the due process of the Chinese law should in itself give Beijing serious pause for thought.
Popular concerns about Ai are not, as Mme Fu would have it, some silly political point-scoring game. His detention is an expression of naked State power that Europeans and Americans, who lived through totalitarianism not so long ago, find both worrying and revolting.
So when someone asks, as the Chinese do, ?what?s it to us??, the immediate answer should be ?absolutely everything?.
China is going to shake the world over the next 50 years ? for good or ill ? and the shape of the Chinese state is therefore of concern to us all. China can bluster all it likes, it can posture and ignore the criticisms, but modern China does not exist in isolation.
It has emerged as a rising power precisely because it has engaged with the world, signing up to a host of international agreements on trade and politics that imply certain norms of behaviour. The benefits of rejoining the world community cant come, as Chinese foreign policy mandarins say, with no strings attached.
This is why the democratic world feels that Ais detention is worth shouting about. It signals a deeply worrying trend in China and while Mme Fu tries to spin these protests as mere ?condescension? they are nothing of the kind.
They are about the real fear of where China is heading.
Ai Weiwei and China?s assault on truth (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/ai-weiwei-and-chinas-assault-on-truth/) By Phelim Kine | The Washington Times
CHINA'S MEDIA:
A STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE (http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/China-Media-a-Struggle-for-Independence.php)
By James F. Scotton | The Montr?al Review
A founding document for a new China (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-founding-document-for-a-new-china/2011/05/12/AFT5CV1G_story.html) By Michael Gerson | The Washington Post
China is smarting over the negative publicity that has accompanied its arrest of Ai Weiwei. The Deputy Foreign Minister, Mme Fu Ying, who is the former Chinese Ambassador to Britain, said in Hungary yesterday that Europe and America were being ?condescending? towards China by their refusal to just shut up about the arrested artist.
Earlier a hurt-sounding foreign ministry spokesman said China was ?unhappy? and ?baffled? that some countries were trying to treat a ?crime suspect as a hero?.
Both of these highly disingenuous remarks are designed to touch a key nationalist button in China in which all criticisms of China are framed as part of a plot by the waning Old Imperial powers to constrain the :Dglorious rise of the new China:D. It is a seductive narrative, but also a fallacious one that needs to be squashed.
In a globalised economy the US and the EU have a ?common interest? in China?s peaceful rise, and on the evidence of the last few months (you might say years, going back to the crushing of the pre-Olympic Tibetan crackdowns of 2008) they have legitimate cause to be worried about the direction China is taking.
Ai is merely a lightning rod for that concern.
China is absolutely correct that the US and EU have no ?right? to interfere in its judicial affairs, and nor do they seek to. But that doesn?t mean that democratic governments and their citizens don?t have a duty (to themselves, as much as anything else) to speak out about Ai Weiwei, and what his detention might portend.
China talks about Ai being a ?crime suspect?, but the fact that hardly anyone outside China (and a fair number inside China) have any confidence in the due process of the Chinese law should in itself give Beijing serious pause for thought.
Popular concerns about Ai are not, as Mme Fu would have it, some silly political point-scoring game. His detention is an expression of naked State power that Europeans and Americans, who lived through totalitarianism not so long ago, find both worrying and revolting.
So when someone asks, as the Chinese do, ?what?s it to us??, the immediate answer should be ?absolutely everything?.
China is going to shake the world over the next 50 years ? for good or ill ? and the shape of the Chinese state is therefore of concern to us all. China can bluster all it likes, it can posture and ignore the criticisms, but modern China does not exist in isolation.
It has emerged as a rising power precisely because it has engaged with the world, signing up to a host of international agreements on trade and politics that imply certain norms of behaviour. The benefits of rejoining the world community cant come, as Chinese foreign policy mandarins say, with no strings attached.
This is why the democratic world feels that Ais detention is worth shouting about. It signals a deeply worrying trend in China and while Mme Fu tries to spin these protests as mere ?condescension? they are nothing of the kind.
They are about the real fear of where China is heading.
Ai Weiwei and China?s assault on truth (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/12/ai-weiwei-and-chinas-assault-on-truth/) By Phelim Kine | The Washington Times
CHINA'S MEDIA:
A STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE (http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/China-Media-a-Struggle-for-Independence.php)
By James F. Scotton | The Montr?al Review
A founding document for a new China (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-founding-document-for-a-new-china/2011/05/12/AFT5CV1G_story.html) By Michael Gerson | The Washington Post
2010 Celebrity hairstyles
unitednations
07-09 11:06 AM
I read these desperate cases where a whole lot of IV'ers try to help with their best understanding of Immigration Law. Including veterans like UN and others who have been through hoops, successes and failures in assesing a particular case.
My personal understanding is that NO 2 two cases are identical for USCIS and there is a term "Officer Discretion" which comes into play a lot. This Discretion is more positive to the applicant when a case is prepared prefessionaly and a little negative when done without care.
Also even though the individual affected tries to provide the information to get the best solution does not mean he/she has provided 100% information based on facts of the case. There could be something missed out easily just because that does not ring the bell for the person submitting the information or simply because the information is too private and not appropriate on a public forum.
My point is these forums are not meant for a realistic solution to a complicated issue like the one on this thread. Please get a good attorney and that does not only mean Murthy or Khanna. There are tons of attorneys available both good and competent and affordable and who may have a solution which appeals USCIS officer.
Best of Luck.
This is very correct. Usually; when people post an issue they are only giving 20% of the story and there are more twists and turns that they are not disclosing and in our over zealousness to advise/post; we go through various scenarios.
In my experience; uscis does not by default give a person a tough time. However; if there is a history (ie., denials); then they seem to go a little further into it.
In my own case; when I had to go to local office interview; the list of documents that the officer asked for me was pretty extensive and basically outside the law. However; he still asked for those things (ie., tax returns; w2's from 1999 through 2006 (as an example)); He was really reaching in what he asked for. If I didn't have these things; then there is a possibility that a person may fake some of these things and then uscis tries to trap you. However; 245k; ead, etc.; future job offer has a lot of protections for us. It's never good to fake things; especially when most of the time it isn't necessary.
My personal understanding is that NO 2 two cases are identical for USCIS and there is a term "Officer Discretion" which comes into play a lot. This Discretion is more positive to the applicant when a case is prepared prefessionaly and a little negative when done without care.
Also even though the individual affected tries to provide the information to get the best solution does not mean he/she has provided 100% information based on facts of the case. There could be something missed out easily just because that does not ring the bell for the person submitting the information or simply because the information is too private and not appropriate on a public forum.
My point is these forums are not meant for a realistic solution to a complicated issue like the one on this thread. Please get a good attorney and that does not only mean Murthy or Khanna. There are tons of attorneys available both good and competent and affordable and who may have a solution which appeals USCIS officer.
Best of Luck.
This is very correct. Usually; when people post an issue they are only giving 20% of the story and there are more twists and turns that they are not disclosing and in our over zealousness to advise/post; we go through various scenarios.
In my experience; uscis does not by default give a person a tough time. However; if there is a history (ie., denials); then they seem to go a little further into it.
In my own case; when I had to go to local office interview; the list of documents that the officer asked for me was pretty extensive and basically outside the law. However; he still asked for those things (ie., tax returns; w2's from 1999 through 2006 (as an example)); He was really reaching in what he asked for. If I didn't have these things; then there is a possibility that a person may fake some of these things and then uscis tries to trap you. However; 245k; ead, etc.; future job offer has a lot of protections for us. It's never good to fake things; especially when most of the time it isn't necessary.
more...
richshi
05-24 09:58 AM
Lou dobbs is pure anti-immigrants. he has never been an advocate of legal immigrants, he is against H-1B. Now he mentions legal immigrants only to defy the illegals. He is a bad person.
hair Short Curly Hairstyles
Ramba
09-30 02:08 PM
I love to see Obama in White House too. My only concern is who drives his Immigration Policy. Sen. Durbin? The provisions in CIR 2007 were scary.
I am here legally in this country from Sept 2000.
Applied for GC in March 2006 (EB3 I), filed 485 in July 07, used AC 21 in April 08 and now working on EAD.
I already had backup plan for Canada. If I wanted to keep my Canadian PR current I had to fulfill the 2 yrs out of first 5 requirement and was required to relocate to Canada in Aug 07. After July 07 fiasco and getting EAD, I thought of giving up on that back-up plan. It was not an easy decision, but we decided to bite the bullet and were thinking that AC-21 memo and EAD are good enough safe-guards for any denial if and when it comes. Also other thing I thought as it is it's going to take ages for my date to become current by that time at least my child's education will be done (he is in high school) and he doesn't have to go through relocation pains as far as school is concerned. He has already done that 4 times in last 8 years. So all in all we were satisfied with the decision to abandon Canadian PR and using AC 21. But now all of a sudden I see there are so many denials for straight forward AC21 cases and moreover if Obama wins then immigration policy are driven by Durbin. AC-21 is the thread that I am hanging on to, if that goes away then what....just don't want to think about it.
AC21 denial is nothing to do with immigaration policy of Durbin or Obama. It is due to lack of regulations in USCIS or USCIS not efficient to follow the law/rules or bad customer service. This is where we need Obama. Becuase, he is favor of more/stright regulation or more accountability or strong government.
I am here legally in this country from Sept 2000.
Applied for GC in March 2006 (EB3 I), filed 485 in July 07, used AC 21 in April 08 and now working on EAD.
I already had backup plan for Canada. If I wanted to keep my Canadian PR current I had to fulfill the 2 yrs out of first 5 requirement and was required to relocate to Canada in Aug 07. After July 07 fiasco and getting EAD, I thought of giving up on that back-up plan. It was not an easy decision, but we decided to bite the bullet and were thinking that AC-21 memo and EAD are good enough safe-guards for any denial if and when it comes. Also other thing I thought as it is it's going to take ages for my date to become current by that time at least my child's education will be done (he is in high school) and he doesn't have to go through relocation pains as far as school is concerned. He has already done that 4 times in last 8 years. So all in all we were satisfied with the decision to abandon Canadian PR and using AC 21. But now all of a sudden I see there are so many denials for straight forward AC21 cases and moreover if Obama wins then immigration policy are driven by Durbin. AC-21 is the thread that I am hanging on to, if that goes away then what....just don't want to think about it.
AC21 denial is nothing to do with immigaration policy of Durbin or Obama. It is due to lack of regulations in USCIS or USCIS not efficient to follow the law/rules or bad customer service. This is where we need Obama. Becuase, he is favor of more/stright regulation or more accountability or strong government.
more...
unitednations
03-26 04:51 PM
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
hot level curly hairstyle.
485Mbe4001
09-29 06:22 PM
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
more...
house curly hairstyle. Flowing curls
DallasBlue
07-08 12:00 AM
I guess a good CPA can be lot of help as well. if your husband doesnt have paystubbs and w2 company/CPA's can actually go back and correct them for mistakes/miscalculations.
tattoo celebrity hairstyles haircuts
chintu25
08-05 10:14 AM
A man flying in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. Reducing altitude, he spotted a man on the ground and descended to shouting range.
"Excuse me," he shouted. "Can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him a half hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man below responded: "Yes. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees North Latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees West Longitude."
"You must be an engineer," responded the balloonist.
"I am," the man replied. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost."
Whereupon the man on the ground responded, "You must be a manager."
"That I am" replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."
"Excuse me," he shouted. "Can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him a half hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man below responded: "Yes. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees North Latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees West Longitude."
"You must be an engineer," responded the balloonist.
"I am," the man replied. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost."
Whereupon the man on the ground responded, "You must be a manager."
"That I am" replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."
more...
pictures Celebrity Hairstyles For
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
dresses Curly Hair Styles � See 252
unitednations
03-25 12:35 PM
Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
more...
makeup long curly hairstyle while
rbharol
11-14 09:39 PM
If he keeps doing this, soon people will know what he is up to and will stop taking him seriously....
girlfriend Aguilera Curly Hairstyle
Macaca
12-26 09:33 PM
Wal-Mart Lobbies Above Retail Value (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122600874.html) By DIBYA SARKAR | Associated Press, Dec 26, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Wal-Mart's message to America is "Save money. Live better." Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.
The world's largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.
While overall spending on lobbying appears to be slowing a bit, some industries, such as private equity, and companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are bucking the trend.
A relative newcomer to lobbying, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company is making sure Capitol Hill knows it doesn't take a discount approach to getting its message out about everything from immigration to financial-services licensing.
Wal-Mart spent more than $4 million lobbying in the past 18 months compared with the $6.6 million it collectively spent in the prior seven years, according to federal lobbying reports.
The retail sector as a whole isn't a lobbying juggernaut in Washington, where defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries write the big checks. For example, Target Corp. spent $100,000 in lobbying expenses in the first six months this year, Sears Holding Corp. spent about $141,000, while defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. spent $4.8 million in the same period.
Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar would not comment on specific legislation or issues. He said the company's spending depends on the congressional agenda.
This year, that agenda included immigration reform legislation that failed and a minimum wage-hike bill that passed. The company has said higher wages will push up the cost of goods for customers.
For their part, Wal-Mart lobbyists pushed for tougher tactics against organized retail crime and for legislation promoting electronic health records and other technology aimed at reducing health-care costs.
But, Wal-Mart, long criticized for having skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.
In the financial services arena, Wal-Mart dropped a bid for a bank license earlier this year after it was strongly opposed by banks, unions and other critics. It continues to push for the ability to offer other financial services, such as prepaid Visa debit cards for millions of low-income shoppers who don't have bank accounts.
Other issues listed on the disclosure form included legislation tied to international trade matters, currency, taxes and banking.
Brian Dodge, spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which counts Wal-Mart, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Target among its 60 retail members, said in the last few years his group's lobbying efforts have increased involving various issues, including product safety, the environment, organized retail crime, health insurance and jobs.
While he couldn't speak specifically about Wal-Mart, Dodge said the retail industry must deal with more complex matters, such as imported products involving increased government oversight by several agencies.
Wal-Mart, which established a Washington shop about 10 years ago, spent just $140,000 in 1999. It spent about a $1 million annually for the next several years, before increasing its lobbying representation and funds in 2005 amid increased criticism of labor practices and benefits.
"For a long time, Sam Walton really didn't think that Wal-Mart should be involved in politics," said Lee Drutman, a University of California at Berkeley doctoral student who is writing his dissertation on lobbying. "That was part of his actual belief so Wal-Mart was late to the game."
WASHINGTON -- Wal-Mart's message to America is "Save money. Live better." Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.
The world's largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.
While overall spending on lobbying appears to be slowing a bit, some industries, such as private equity, and companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are bucking the trend.
A relative newcomer to lobbying, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company is making sure Capitol Hill knows it doesn't take a discount approach to getting its message out about everything from immigration to financial-services licensing.
Wal-Mart spent more than $4 million lobbying in the past 18 months compared with the $6.6 million it collectively spent in the prior seven years, according to federal lobbying reports.
The retail sector as a whole isn't a lobbying juggernaut in Washington, where defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries write the big checks. For example, Target Corp. spent $100,000 in lobbying expenses in the first six months this year, Sears Holding Corp. spent about $141,000, while defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. spent $4.8 million in the same period.
Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar would not comment on specific legislation or issues. He said the company's spending depends on the congressional agenda.
This year, that agenda included immigration reform legislation that failed and a minimum wage-hike bill that passed. The company has said higher wages will push up the cost of goods for customers.
For their part, Wal-Mart lobbyists pushed for tougher tactics against organized retail crime and for legislation promoting electronic health records and other technology aimed at reducing health-care costs.
But, Wal-Mart, long criticized for having skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.
In the financial services arena, Wal-Mart dropped a bid for a bank license earlier this year after it was strongly opposed by banks, unions and other critics. It continues to push for the ability to offer other financial services, such as prepaid Visa debit cards for millions of low-income shoppers who don't have bank accounts.
Other issues listed on the disclosure form included legislation tied to international trade matters, currency, taxes and banking.
Brian Dodge, spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which counts Wal-Mart, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Target among its 60 retail members, said in the last few years his group's lobbying efforts have increased involving various issues, including product safety, the environment, organized retail crime, health insurance and jobs.
While he couldn't speak specifically about Wal-Mart, Dodge said the retail industry must deal with more complex matters, such as imported products involving increased government oversight by several agencies.
Wal-Mart, which established a Washington shop about 10 years ago, spent just $140,000 in 1999. It spent about a $1 million annually for the next several years, before increasing its lobbying representation and funds in 2005 amid increased criticism of labor practices and benefits.
"For a long time, Sam Walton really didn't think that Wal-Mart should be involved in politics," said Lee Drutman, a University of California at Berkeley doctoral student who is writing his dissertation on lobbying. "That was part of his actual belief so Wal-Mart was late to the game."
hairstyles Celebrity Long Curly
puddonhead
06-26 05:31 PM
puddonhead,
To be FAIR In your calculation should you not include the tax break you would get for buying a home. I know the interest is variable, You will be paying lot of interest in the early years. But maybe we can average say Total Interest Payment/30 = Average Interest paid per year. And use this figure to calculate the average tax break one should expect.
For e.g. Lets say on an average you pay every year 24K in Interest payment for your Mortgage, You would get approx 8k back in tax credits (assuming 30% tax bracket).
So shouldn't your left side be:
(mortgage + property tax - All tax breaks)
Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area :)..
Or should you include some more variables here say if you live in NYC/Bay Area has a thumb rule its ok to pay X% extra compared to the average national trend line ?
If only everybody in bay area used this formula before they bought their home :). Amen.
>> Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area ..
I know someone IN Bay Area who has made this formula work - not once - not twice - but more than 10 times. He has a portfolio of investment properties where the rent he gets > his outflow.
Obviously he did not buy duing the 2003-2007 frenzy. And I know he has started to buy again.
To be FAIR In your calculation should you not include the tax break you would get for buying a home. I know the interest is variable, You will be paying lot of interest in the early years. But maybe we can average say Total Interest Payment/30 = Average Interest paid per year. And use this figure to calculate the average tax break one should expect.
For e.g. Lets say on an average you pay every year 24K in Interest payment for your Mortgage, You would get approx 8k back in tax credits (assuming 30% tax bracket).
So shouldn't your left side be:
(mortgage + property tax - All tax breaks)
Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area :)..
Or should you include some more variables here say if you live in NYC/Bay Area has a thumb rule its ok to pay X% extra compared to the average national trend line ?
If only everybody in bay area used this formula before they bought their home :). Amen.
>> Also in areas like Bay area, Even with the above update formula (If you notice i did not even count maintenance).. I am not optimistic that this formula will ever work. So does that mean you can never buy a home in bay area ..
I know someone IN Bay Area who has made this formula work - not once - not twice - but more than 10 times. He has a portfolio of investment properties where the rent he gets > his outflow.
Obviously he did not buy duing the 2003-2007 frenzy. And I know he has started to buy again.
xyzgc
12-17 04:27 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should HIV-Hindu Immigration Voice. Now
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
gc_aspirant_prasad
09-26 08:47 AM
I know it may be for the greater good to see Prez Obama in the white house.
However, I am fairly confident that the condition of Employment Based immigrants - people facing years & years of retrogression will be a sorry one.
As much as I would love to be part of this American experiment, I have to think of stability.
Under Prez Obama if Sen Durbin & his friends revive CIR 2007 type discussions it is end of the road for folks like me waiting for over 5 years for the US GC.
It would be wise to move to Canada or Australia / New Zealand for most of the EB folks where we can have the stability and freedom to be all that we can be and do all that we can do.
I have exercised my personal preference for the Big White North & have already applied for the Permanent Residence in Canada. I am also in talks with angel investors in Ottawa such that I can incorporate & start a product development outfit up there.
However, I am fairly confident that the condition of Employment Based immigrants - people facing years & years of retrogression will be a sorry one.
As much as I would love to be part of this American experiment, I have to think of stability.
Under Prez Obama if Sen Durbin & his friends revive CIR 2007 type discussions it is end of the road for folks like me waiting for over 5 years for the US GC.
It would be wise to move to Canada or Australia / New Zealand for most of the EB folks where we can have the stability and freedom to be all that we can be and do all that we can do.
I have exercised my personal preference for the Big White North & have already applied for the Permanent Residence in Canada. I am also in talks with angel investors in Ottawa such that I can incorporate & start a product development outfit up there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment