hopefulgc
07-13 10:06 PM
abe khajoor log .. kutte ke jaise mat lado.. thanda lo
(guys, stop fighting like dogs.. chill out)
why did I write in hindi language...?
because nobody seems to understand the same thing written in plain old english here.
(guys, stop fighting like dogs.. chill out)
why did I write in hindi language...?
because nobody seems to understand the same thing written in plain old english here.
wallpaper The remix King R. Kelly
GCInThisLife
07-19 02:40 PM
UN,
I understand what you are saying. My question is.. is there anything I/my wife can do at this point? If she goes to out of country (India) and try getting either H1B stamped or H4 and re-file I485 (hoping my PD would be current as it is so far back) if it gets denied?
Looks like we are mentally preparing for the worst.. After 10 years of stay in the US..:(
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
I understand what you are saying. My question is.. is there anything I/my wife can do at this point? If she goes to out of country (India) and try getting either H1B stamped or H4 and re-file I485 (hoping my PD would be current as it is so far back) if it gets denied?
Looks like we are mentally preparing for the worst.. After 10 years of stay in the US..:(
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
unitednations
08-02 12:29 PM
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
2011 Kelly Rowland ft.
GCwaitforever
05-24 10:54 PM
Can one understand that an automatic increase of 20% per year can cause hardship to citizens caught in a future and unexpected recession ? That's all I am saying.
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Communique
This is what I can tell you. Couple of my friends choose to go to China for job opportunitieis because that is where manufacturing base of USA is. For opportunities, Americans go to places like Dubai and Russia which are growth markets. In a global economy, job migration is common. It happens both ways - into USA and out of USA.
Lou Dobbs rants about protecting American jobs all the time. Where was he when this was happening from 1980's when blue collar jobs were being shifted to China? USA lost more jobs in manufacturing than in IT outsourcing. His rants bring a sense of insecurity among American viewers, nothing else. The truth is Americans are most resourceful. When faced with a challenge, they find something within themselves, do something and earn a living for themselves. Current number of IT jobs in USA exceeds the number of jobs available during the peak of dotcom era. So infact the IT sector in USA expanded considerably from the dotcom time. Would not you expect a shortage of workers now, given low admission levels of US students in Technology fields? This shortage is part of the reason for expansion of outsourcing. And US universities fill their seats with bright foreign students, but there are not enough VISA numbers to keep these students here. Also USA population is aging rapidly. Part of the reason for nurses in high demand is this. More nurses needed to take care of patients, but not enough people in the profession.
Congress cut down the VISA numbers after the dotcom bust to 65,000 from the height of 195,000.
As for the salary stagnation, outsourcing is definitely one of the reasons. Big companies outsource their work to a cheaper place, and because of their presence in that country, offset offshoring costs against local revenue in that place, there by reduce the tax exposure in USA. This is a double advantage for them. Hence more inclination for outsourcing.
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Communique
This is what I can tell you. Couple of my friends choose to go to China for job opportunitieis because that is where manufacturing base of USA is. For opportunities, Americans go to places like Dubai and Russia which are growth markets. In a global economy, job migration is common. It happens both ways - into USA and out of USA.
Lou Dobbs rants about protecting American jobs all the time. Where was he when this was happening from 1980's when blue collar jobs were being shifted to China? USA lost more jobs in manufacturing than in IT outsourcing. His rants bring a sense of insecurity among American viewers, nothing else. The truth is Americans are most resourceful. When faced with a challenge, they find something within themselves, do something and earn a living for themselves. Current number of IT jobs in USA exceeds the number of jobs available during the peak of dotcom era. So infact the IT sector in USA expanded considerably from the dotcom time. Would not you expect a shortage of workers now, given low admission levels of US students in Technology fields? This shortage is part of the reason for expansion of outsourcing. And US universities fill their seats with bright foreign students, but there are not enough VISA numbers to keep these students here. Also USA population is aging rapidly. Part of the reason for nurses in high demand is this. More nurses needed to take care of patients, but not enough people in the profession.
Congress cut down the VISA numbers after the dotcom bust to 65,000 from the height of 195,000.
As for the salary stagnation, outsourcing is definitely one of the reasons. Big companies outsource their work to a cheaper place, and because of their presence in that country, offset offshoring costs against local revenue in that place, there by reduce the tax exposure in USA. This is a double advantage for them. Hence more inclination for outsourcing.
more...
unitednations
08-14 09:17 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
%252520(Final%252520Version).png "kelly rowland motivation album")
Macaca
05-16 08:04 AM
Democrats Under Scrutiny As They Shape Lobbying Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051402086.html) By Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, May 15, 2007
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
House Democratic leaders yesterday discussed key elements of a long-awaited lobbying reform bill, which has been seen as a signal test of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring unprecedented transparency to the Democratic-led institution.
While the legislation would open congressional lobbying to greater public scrutiny, its contours hint at a behind-the-scenes battle by the leadership to retain its most sweeping new measures.
The bill will be unveiled today at a Democratic caucus meeting, where more changes will be discussed. At the meeting last night, party leaders debated the proposal's three most important provisions, which appear headed for varying fates.
Watchdog groups and freshman members who rode into Congress on promises of ethics reform see as most critical a section imposing stricter reporting guidelines on the practice of "bundling," in which lobbyists gather and deliver bundles of contribution checks to a member. In an effort to prevent opponents of that measure from killing the entire bill, Democrats may address bundling in a separate bill or amendment, to be introduced in tandem with the main legislation.
The House bill is likely to drop a second key provision, requiring that lobbyists who orchestrate grass-roots letter-writing and telephoning campaigns disclose their involvement.
The third new element -- a "revolving door" measure doubling, to two years, the time members must wait after leaving Congress before lobbying former colleagues -- is expected to be included in the final bill.
Other provisions impose disclosure requirements on lobbyist-paid meetings and parties, contributions to charities, and other sponsored activities. Disclosure records would be posted online, in a searchable format.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to formally draft the bill Thursday, with a vote anticipated before the Memorial Day recess.
"I believe that the voters are going to be watching carefully to see whether we address this issue," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sponsor of the bundling measure. "We are letting our members know that this is an important issue for the Democratic agenda. . . . We're very focused on getting this done."
Sponsors and watchdogs had hoped the House lobbying reform bill would go further than the Senate's version, passed with great fanfare in the opening days of the new Congress. Instead, it appears to closely track the Senate bill, which also did not include restrictions on grass-roots lobbying. In recent weeks, according to several people close to the talks, the Senate had been pushing the House to narrow the bundling restrictions in its version, by limiting reporting requirements to clearly defined fundraising agreements between lobbyists and members. The House bill as discussed would do that.
Passage of a weaker bill -- chiefly, one without bundling rules -- would disappoint watchdogs, who have waged a lobbying campaign of their own for the new law.
"I am sensing a fading of enthusiasm for lobbying and ethics reform, which is why we have to get this done as soon as we can," said Craig Holman of advocacy group Public Citizen. "The longer we wait, the weaker this bill seems to get." Holman said he is lining up legislators to introduce, as amendments, any major portions of the lobbying bill eliminated in this week's discussions.
Democrats' promise to end the "culture of corruption" they said developed in Washington under Republican rule helped propel the party into the majority in November elections. They quickly tightened the rules over travel, meals and gifts from lobbyists, and improved disclosure rules for earmarks -- the pet projects that lawmakers tuck into legislation.
But a task force appointed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to look into creating an independent entity to investigate ethics charges against lawmakers has missed its May 1 deadline for issuing recommendations, amid foot-dragging by members opposed to the idea.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said the party's leadership considers ethics reform "an obligation."
"We as a party successfully talked about a culture of corruption, and one of the pledges we made was to change that," he said. To do so, he added, "you've got to change the laws, and people's attitudes."
more...
vivekm1309
12-31 11:03 AM
IV is meant to discuss Immigration issues ...Politics, International terrorism, India/Pak relations, can be discussed in some of the other forums.
2010 cover for Kelly Rowland#39;s
logiclife
02-21 12:52 PM
Lou dobbs, Pat Buchanan and people of that kind are full of vanity. It is wise to tune out such guys and make sure that they do not affect policy decisions in congress. I dont think policy makers care for his rant on TV.
Pat Buchanan atleast ran for President for a couple of times. He has a lot of wrong ideas especially about immigration but he wanted to do something about whatever he believed in. And he actually did work in public service in the seventies in the Nixon White House.
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Pat Buchanan atleast ran for President for a couple of times. He has a lot of wrong ideas especially about immigration but he wanted to do something about whatever he believed in. And he actually did work in public service in the seventies in the Nixon White House.
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
more...
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
hair Kelly Rowland credits Oprah,
validIV
06-08 10:41 AM
Your common sense tells you to abandon your GC because it is taking too long? Then with your defeatist mentality, you should leave the country now. In case you didn't read a word of what I said, the interest you pay is tax deductible.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?
Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?
Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
hot kelly rowland album cover
ItIsNotFunny
12-17 03:11 PM
Looks like his initial intentions were not bad but discussion went on wrong direction.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
more...
house 1 Kelly Rowland Motivation
reddog
01-06 12:49 PM
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
And look at what India is going thru. Each and every year, bomb blasts in multiple cities.
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
Indians support a military action against Pakistan as they know that the state of Pakistan is involved in these terrorist activities.
And even if the state not knowing about these people does not relieve them from accountability.
So how different would it be if India initiates a military strike on Pakistan, will they guarantee that not a single innocent live will be taken?
Israelis feel much safer in their country, even after being surrounded by enemies from all side.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
And look at what India is going thru. Each and every year, bomb blasts in multiple cities.
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
Indians support a military action against Pakistan as they know that the state of Pakistan is involved in these terrorist activities.
And even if the state not knowing about these people does not relieve them from accountability.
So how different would it be if India initiates a military strike on Pakistan, will they guarantee that not a single innocent live will be taken?
Israelis feel much safer in their country, even after being surrounded by enemies from all side.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
tattoo kelly rowland motivation album
mariner5555
03-24 11:13 PM
This is total BS.
Bashing Illegal immigrants for housing market crash and accusing entire race of being theives is nothing new among right wing anti-immigrant "Hatriots"
But there really isn't co-relation between illegal migration and housing crash.. if anything, migrants are also first time buyers and they support prices towards to lower end market and stop entire lower-middle class neighbourhoods from becoming what Detroit or Youngstown have become..
So no need to parrot hateful propoganda here.. lets stick to the point..
o.k. ..I had copied comments from other readers and I have removed the unnecessary remarks ..The only reason I am keeping the remaining portion is to show how many of the first time buyers (I guess Americans) feel. so if lot of people think like the above then housing will take longer to stabilize. (BTW I agree there is no relation between immi and housing crash - nor is it implied in the comments I had pasted). I guess sometimes it makes sense to read what other readers / natives feel about certain situations. a final thought (unless I have to respond to someone else's post) - everywhere I look (articles and in real life) - things are real bad in terms of real estate. will things improve - definitely but it may take long time for things to stabilize and hence it makes sense to do extra research before taking a plunge. for e.g at present I am staying in a rented town home - and I got the deal for $850 - the town homes are inside an apt complex in a good neighborhood. (you need to show income of atleast 3 times the rent to get a place here and many tenants are high tech guys). the same town home during boom time had rent of $1250 ..in other words - there are tons of deals due to excessive supply everywhere. one other important point was made by another person - this winter was harsh and hence people did everything to keep a roof above their head - wait till summer and you will see people literally walking away from their homes ...when u read posts like the above ..it makes sense to wait for some more time esp on H1 / EAD.
Bashing Illegal immigrants for housing market crash and accusing entire race of being theives is nothing new among right wing anti-immigrant "Hatriots"
But there really isn't co-relation between illegal migration and housing crash.. if anything, migrants are also first time buyers and they support prices towards to lower end market and stop entire lower-middle class neighbourhoods from becoming what Detroit or Youngstown have become..
So no need to parrot hateful propoganda here.. lets stick to the point..
o.k. ..I had copied comments from other readers and I have removed the unnecessary remarks ..The only reason I am keeping the remaining portion is to show how many of the first time buyers (I guess Americans) feel. so if lot of people think like the above then housing will take longer to stabilize. (BTW I agree there is no relation between immi and housing crash - nor is it implied in the comments I had pasted). I guess sometimes it makes sense to read what other readers / natives feel about certain situations. a final thought (unless I have to respond to someone else's post) - everywhere I look (articles and in real life) - things are real bad in terms of real estate. will things improve - definitely but it may take long time for things to stabilize and hence it makes sense to do extra research before taking a plunge. for e.g at present I am staying in a rented town home - and I got the deal for $850 - the town homes are inside an apt complex in a good neighborhood. (you need to show income of atleast 3 times the rent to get a place here and many tenants are high tech guys). the same town home during boom time had rent of $1250 ..in other words - there are tons of deals due to excessive supply everywhere. one other important point was made by another person - this winter was harsh and hence people did everything to keep a roof above their head - wait till summer and you will see people literally walking away from their homes ...when u read posts like the above ..it makes sense to wait for some more time esp on H1 / EAD.
more...
pictures Kelly#39;s Motivation
gc4me
12-17 03:57 PM
Is it 200 not 2000 :D
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
dresses kelly rowland motivation remix
paskal
04-09 11:59 AM
As is true with everything else it cannot be all gain.
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?
more...
makeup Kelly Rowland goes to the top
GCKaMaara
12-17 05:14 PM
the mumbai incident was a terrible one. the guilty must be punished to the fullest extent, be it people from any background doing it in the name of religion.
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
Any innocent killed must be stopped. My faith is any person who does it or supports it must and will be punished by God.
In the same way the people in this forum should have been angry/troubled over the killings in orissa where innocent christians were beaten, raped, killed, burned alive, home destroyed and chased from the homes to the jungles just because of their faith. this sort of crimes against christians is taking place throughout many parts of India. I am sure this will not go unpunished on the people who did/do these terrible things. the punishment may be delayed, but I am 100% sure it's going to be devastating on the people. mark my words. 'Coz I believe there is a God above, who watches and at the appointed time the punishment will come.
But the bible also says that God is forgiving. The Bible says the following:
"If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John; chap 1 verse 9)
Also it says in the book of John (chapter 3 verse 16):
"For God so loved the world (mankind) that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die as a sacrifice (for the sins of mankind), that whoever believes in Him (and repent), shall not perish but have eternal life".
Any innocent killed must be stopped. My faith is any person who does it or supports it must and will be punished by God.
girlfriend Kelly Rowland#39;s Motivation
lfwf
08-05 03:17 PM
So why are those of us not in IT suffering the consequences of this?
Jobs in my field are pretty well defined so all this crap that is being said on thsi thread is really surprising to me.
Jobs in my field are pretty well defined so all this crap that is being said on thsi thread is really surprising to me.
hairstyles Kelly Rowland - Motivation
Macaca
03-06 09:03 PM
Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html) Report of the Visa Office
The Report of the Visa Office is an annual report providing statistical information on immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuances by consular offices, as well as information on the use of visa numbers in numerically limited categories.
APPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Aug07. pdf)
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm)
CIS Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1183751418157.shtm)
CIS Ombudsman's 2006 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0890.shtm)
Annual Report 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf)
Annual Report 2004 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISReport_to_Congress.pdf)
Spotlight on Legal Immigration to the United States (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=651) By Gretchen Reinemeyer and Jeanne Batalova | Migration Policy Institute, November 2007
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm)
Annual Flow Report
U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2006 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/IS-4496_LPRFlowReport_04vaccessible.pdf) By KELLY JEFFERYS
U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/USLegalPermEst_5.pdf) By KELLY JEFFERYS AND NANCY RYTINA
The Report of the Visa Office is an annual report providing statistical information on immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuances by consular offices, as well as information on the use of visa numbers in numerically limited categories.
APPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Aug07. pdf)
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm)
CIS Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1183751418157.shtm)
CIS Ombudsman's 2006 Annual Report to Congress (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0890.shtm)
Annual Report 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf)
Annual Report 2004 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISReport_to_Congress.pdf)
Spotlight on Legal Immigration to the United States (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=651) By Gretchen Reinemeyer and Jeanne Batalova | Migration Policy Institute, November 2007
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/yearbook.shtm)
Annual Flow Report
U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2006 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/IS-4496_LPRFlowReport_04vaccessible.pdf) By KELLY JEFFERYS
U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2005 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/USLegalPermEst_5.pdf) By KELLY JEFFERYS AND NANCY RYTINA
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:36 PM
One day, Adam sat outside the Garden of Eden shortly after eating the apple...
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
prioritydate
01-10 10:09 AM
Israel is not invading Gaza for no reason. Why do coward Palestinians need to fire rockets and send those suicide bombers to blow themselves? Muslims need to stop violence in the name of their religion. Why don't you stop killing people, so you would get 72 virgins in some loser world! Israel is doing the right thing and I will support its action. Yes, innocent people get killed, but Hamas need to fight in the open field instead of launching rockets from schools and hospitals.