Macaca
01-30 06:48 PM
The article Round 2: H-1B Battle: American engineers vs. President Bush (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480)! has the following paras.
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
wallpaper Dark of the Moon Bumblebee
Alabaman
08-13 08:11 AM
... nonetheless, we should all contact CNN or even his show to make a point.. I'll try to fill out his form. I can't believe how CNN has degenerated itself to today's standings..
better still, we should contact Fox news... they would be glad to talk about this and CNN would then have to respond ;)
better still, we should contact Fox news... they would be glad to talk about this and CNN would then have to respond ;)
sledge_hammer
06-27 11:52 AM
Right, you pay for what you called "service", which is what your landlord is providing. And you pay him to let you stay in his house, which means YOU my friend are paying more than 80% of HIS mortgage. At the end of his mortgage, all his tenants would have collectively chipped in to pay more than 80% of HIS mortage and he has a house at the end of it all. What do YOU have? Zero, zilch, nada!
Money paid as interest is the "service" cost of the money being loaned to you. You are paying so that you can live in the house you did NOT pay full cash for.
My interest in a year is 2 times more than the standard deduction. I don't have a business yet, but when I start one, I'm going to have more deductions. Do the math!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
Money paid as interest is the "service" cost of the money being loaned to you. You are paying so that you can live in the house you did NOT pay full cash for.
My interest in a year is 2 times more than the standard deduction. I don't have a business yet, but when I start one, I'm going to have more deductions. Do the math!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
2011 Dark of the Moon Bumblebee
mariner5555
03-24 04:03 PM
I live in NJ close to the cherry hill area and i am looking to buy only in Burlington county. I have been living here for about 9 years now and so far haven't thought of investing here. I invested in india and the investment appreciated 4 times or more so i am happy about the decision. I actually needed a bigger place now and i am not seeing that as a investment but if it turns out that way that's fine with me. I just wanted to find out what are people's experiences with the house escpecially for those who are under H1/EAD.
came across nice comments about NJ - comments from the people were more interesting than the article itself - one of them mentioned NJ and hence am posting it. The comments below are from other people (not mine) --it gives you an idea as to how Americans feel about housing
-----
can tell you in NJ, first time buyers are still screwed and stand no chance of buying right now. Let me set the scene for you. I just turned 25, I made $70k last year ($60k salary $10K bonus), I have 0 credit card debt and have never paid a cent of interest on a credit card. I have no student loans and a finished paying off a car loan in 2.5 years. I have $40k in savings and get an additional 10% of my income put in to a SEP IRA at year ($7k last year, $13k total). I would say I'm doing alright for only being in the workforce for 2.5 years, and I still have to live with my parents. Home prices here are unjustifiably high. On top the ridiculous home prices, I have to figure in the MINUMUM of $500 a MONTH in property taxes due to the complete ineptitude and corrupt nature of my state's government (if you want a never ending source to write about, this would be the place). The AVERAGE property tax in NJ is $6,800/year = $566/ month. Looking at a condo also doesn't work because you can't find a place with association fees of less than $250/month, so no point in paying a lower price for a condo. The ones that are still nice w/ 2 br. & 1 bath list for $300k. Between fees and taxes, you are down $700/month and haven't even gotten to your mortgage yet. I have no choice but to wait and HOPE the economy continues to crumble, while hoping that I stay employed throughout the whole ordeal. All of these action the Fed and the Gov't are taking to soften the blow are doing nothing but screwing me and other first-time buyers. They should just let the bottom fall out already so that people my age can even have a chance to survive on our own.
-------
Buy a house and watch the value continue to tank for the next five years....I'm sure all first time buyers are thrilled at the prospect of being "upside down" in their first mortgage. Also, Fed rate cuts also don't always translate to better mortgage rates. Lenders aren't thrilled about locking buyers into fixed low rates.
-------
Housing prices double in less than 5 years. Then they go down about 10% such that in the last six or seven years, prices have gone up only 80%. So now houses are suddenly a bargain because they aren't quite as overpriced as they were last year? That's like my neighbor joking that gas prices are cheap when they go below $3 a gallon. Houses have a long way to go before they are a good value. You are much better off renting from someone who is desperate to not sell their house for a loss. After a year of renting, you can get that house for less than today's cost plus a year of rent. Oh, and one other thing. Get a 30 year fixed loan with the lowest rate you can find. Make sure you pay attention to the fees, so you are covered there. Go through the process with at least two separate people, so you can easily switch when one tries to screw you. The last thing you want is an ARM when interest rates are sure to go up when the screaming about inflation reaches Washington DC.
---------
came across nice comments about NJ - comments from the people were more interesting than the article itself - one of them mentioned NJ and hence am posting it. The comments below are from other people (not mine) --it gives you an idea as to how Americans feel about housing
-----
can tell you in NJ, first time buyers are still screwed and stand no chance of buying right now. Let me set the scene for you. I just turned 25, I made $70k last year ($60k salary $10K bonus), I have 0 credit card debt and have never paid a cent of interest on a credit card. I have no student loans and a finished paying off a car loan in 2.5 years. I have $40k in savings and get an additional 10% of my income put in to a SEP IRA at year ($7k last year, $13k total). I would say I'm doing alright for only being in the workforce for 2.5 years, and I still have to live with my parents. Home prices here are unjustifiably high. On top the ridiculous home prices, I have to figure in the MINUMUM of $500 a MONTH in property taxes due to the complete ineptitude and corrupt nature of my state's government (if you want a never ending source to write about, this would be the place). The AVERAGE property tax in NJ is $6,800/year = $566/ month. Looking at a condo also doesn't work because you can't find a place with association fees of less than $250/month, so no point in paying a lower price for a condo. The ones that are still nice w/ 2 br. & 1 bath list for $300k. Between fees and taxes, you are down $700/month and haven't even gotten to your mortgage yet. I have no choice but to wait and HOPE the economy continues to crumble, while hoping that I stay employed throughout the whole ordeal. All of these action the Fed and the Gov't are taking to soften the blow are doing nothing but screwing me and other first-time buyers. They should just let the bottom fall out already so that people my age can even have a chance to survive on our own.
-------
Buy a house and watch the value continue to tank for the next five years....I'm sure all first time buyers are thrilled at the prospect of being "upside down" in their first mortgage. Also, Fed rate cuts also don't always translate to better mortgage rates. Lenders aren't thrilled about locking buyers into fixed low rates.
-------
Housing prices double in less than 5 years. Then they go down about 10% such that in the last six or seven years, prices have gone up only 80%. So now houses are suddenly a bargain because they aren't quite as overpriced as they were last year? That's like my neighbor joking that gas prices are cheap when they go below $3 a gallon. Houses have a long way to go before they are a good value. You are much better off renting from someone who is desperate to not sell their house for a loss. After a year of renting, you can get that house for less than today's cost plus a year of rent. Oh, and one other thing. Get a 30 year fixed loan with the lowest rate you can find. Make sure you pay attention to the fees, so you are covered there. Go through the process with at least two separate people, so you can easily switch when one tries to screw you. The last thing you want is an ARM when interest rates are sure to go up when the screaming about inflation reaches Washington DC.
---------
more...
h1techSlave
04-17 03:33 PM
I also thought that pitching in the home buying by GC folks would make a great argument in front of law makers. But there was a very sensible posting by our spokes person Mark B.
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is loosing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is loosing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
Marphad
12-17 02:53 PM
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Because when you speak something it is useful and when others say something is nonsense. Cool.
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Because when you speak something it is useful and when others say something is nonsense. Cool.
2010 transformers dark of the moon
Macaca
12-14 11:40 AM
Plan B For Pelosi And Reid (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/congressional_democrats_need_n.html) By E. J. Dionne | Washington Post, December 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-25 04:43 PM
What men say and what they actually mean . . .
� "I'M GOING FISHING" Means: "I'm going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety."
� "YES, DEAR..." Means: Absolutely nothing. It's a conditioned response.
� "IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN" Means: "I have no idea how it works."
� "TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU'RE WORKING TOO HARD". Means: "I can't hear the game over the vacuum cleaner."
� "THAT'S INTERESTING, DEAR." Means: "Are you still talking?"
� "I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES". Means: "The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe."
� "WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?" Means: "What did you catch me at?"
� "I HEARD YOU." Means: "I haven't the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don't spend the next 3 days yelling at me."
� "YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE." Means: "I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse."
� "YOU LOOK TERRIFIC." Means: "Please don't try on one more outfit, I'm starving."
� "WE SHARE THE HOUSEWORK." Means: "I make the messes, she cleans them up."
� "I'M GOING FISHING" Means: "I'm going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety."
� "YES, DEAR..." Means: Absolutely nothing. It's a conditioned response.
� "IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN" Means: "I have no idea how it works."
� "TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU'RE WORKING TOO HARD". Means: "I can't hear the game over the vacuum cleaner."
� "THAT'S INTERESTING, DEAR." Means: "Are you still talking?"
� "I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES". Means: "The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe."
� "WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?" Means: "What did you catch me at?"
� "I HEARD YOU." Means: "I haven't the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don't spend the next 3 days yelling at me."
� "YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE." Means: "I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse."
� "YOU LOOK TERRIFIC." Means: "Please don't try on one more outfit, I'm starving."
� "WE SHARE THE HOUSEWORK." Means: "I make the messes, she cleans them up."
hair transformers dark of the moon
satishku_2000
04-12 01:01 PM
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
You are not in trouble because of "CONSULTANTS", You are in trouble because country of your birth , because you did not get into queue earlier enough.
I am strictly talking about greencard retrogession here.
You are not in trouble because of "CONSULTANTS", You are in trouble because country of your birth , because you did not get into queue earlier enough.
I am strictly talking about greencard retrogession here.
more...
gcisadawg
01-07 05:39 PM
You lived in India and hate India, because of your wicked religion.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
dude, that is gross! There are so many others who follow Islam and just because a minority is engaging in terrorism in the name of the religion, you can not paint all with the same brush. I hope sense prevails here. If you want, attack refugee's pioint of view not his religion.
This is becoming crap. I request the moderators to throw this thread to where it belongs.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
dude, that is gross! There are so many others who follow Islam and just because a minority is engaging in terrorism in the name of the religion, you can not paint all with the same brush. I hope sense prevails here. If you want, attack refugee's pioint of view not his religion.
This is becoming crap. I request the moderators to throw this thread to where it belongs.
hot Transformers Dark Of The Moon
heywhat
08-02 01:09 PM
So are you not working for company which is processing your GC application?
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
more...
house 2011 from Transformers: Dark
Macaca
01-15 08:35 PM
Not as clear this year (http://thehill.com/editorials/not-as-clear-this-year-2008-01-15.html) The Hill Editorial, 01/15/08
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
tattoo 2011 Transformers: Dark of the
yibornindia
08-05 12:02 PM
This person hiding behind the user id "Rolling_Flood" is an extreme selfish person. The whole idea of our community is to help each other and to provide support & guidance to each-other. Instead he is trying to stop others from getting this advantage, trying to make us believe that EB-2 is his birth-right. I am in EB-2, but I do not support this selfish fox, he will harm the IV community exploiting 'divide & rule' policy. :mad:
I echo you, Very well said.
This guy "Rolling-flood" has not contributed anything positive like lobbying for removing country quota and recapturing of un-used visa numbers, instead he actually wants to cut the line by stopping others taking the same advantage that he is trying to take. If such rules are not there, no one needs to do pd recapturing or changing categories. I have my juniors with less educational qualification, from my neighboring countries who started the process and got GC in less than 16 months straight. isn't that injustice to me - did I have choice to select my country of birth?
BEWARE of this fellow. He may have wasted interests in making IV members fighting amongst themselves.:mad:
I echo you, Very well said.
This guy "Rolling-flood" has not contributed anything positive like lobbying for removing country quota and recapturing of un-used visa numbers, instead he actually wants to cut the line by stopping others taking the same advantage that he is trying to take. If such rules are not there, no one needs to do pd recapturing or changing categories. I have my juniors with less educational qualification, from my neighboring countries who started the process and got GC in less than 16 months straight. isn't that injustice to me - did I have choice to select my country of birth?
BEWARE of this fellow. He may have wasted interests in making IV members fighting amongst themselves.:mad:
more...
pictures dresses The Transformers: Dark
unitednations
08-02 11:57 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
dresses wallpaper Transformers Dark of
file485
07-10 04:54 PM
UN..
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
more...
makeup transformers dark of the moon
chanduv23
04-12 03:20 PM
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
girlfriend makeup wallpaper transformers
gcisadawg
12-23 01:02 AM
Though I sense your intent, I am too feeble to carry the burden even a fraction of the weight of your point. And I am not even trying to be modest here. Though there is a quite a bit of work to be done for moderate muslims to come forward and lead the way, Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
You are right. It is futile to pick a person and to make him a representative of a billion humans. No matter if that person is deemed as a terrorist, a moderate or virtue personified. Ultimately, a person is a product of his/her circumstances. He/she might be moderate/personification of virtue now but who knows what circumstances he encounters and how his/her thought process metamorphose.
You are right. It is futile to pick a person and to make him a representative of a billion humans. No matter if that person is deemed as a terrorist, a moderate or virtue personified. Ultimately, a person is a product of his/her circumstances. He/she might be moderate/personification of virtue now but who knows what circumstances he encounters and how his/her thought process metamorphose.
hairstyles Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Ramba
09-26 06:33 PM
Barack Obama the socialist with his protectionist\restrictionist measures will not create jobs but will destroy the capitalist america. In addition to "creating" jobs by stopping "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS", he will also "create" jobs by kicking you and me out of USA. Lookout for draconian H1b restrictions, points based system, removal of AC21 and amnesty for illegals by obama-kennedy-durbin CIR. Not sure MCcain would do anything for us but one thing for sure he wont be anti to eb folks. Just like Bush who might not have done anything for us but atleast during the july 2007 visa bulletin fiasco his administration (chertof, rice ) atleast reversed the July bulletin after the flower campaign. Durbin-obama would thrown the flowers on our face and kick us out.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
jnraajan
06-05 02:25 PM
It is December 1st not November 30th.
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php
Actually, It has to before Dec Ist, so technically, you should have closed the house at least on Nov 30th.
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php
Actually, It has to before Dec Ist, so technically, you should have closed the house at least on Nov 30th.
Macaca
12-30 05:49 PM
India-China Relations Negotiating a Balance (http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/IB160-Banerjee-India-China.pdf) By Dipankar Banerjee | Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
Now that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao�s visit to India in Nov 2010 has ended, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of India-China relations and where it is headed. Kishore Mahbubani, the distinguished Asian thinker from Singapore, described India-China relations as, �the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st Century�. Indeed, historically, civilizationally, from the perspective of economic benefits to the region or from peace and security in Asia and the world; this is a relationship that is likely to shape the global future.
There is no scope for mistakes. Two large nations that are simultaneously reemerging at a rapid pace, thus this relationship has to be based on carefully balanced enlightened self interests. To achieve this will call for delicate negotiations based on our respective genius, taking account of our differences, yet accommodating the genuine concerns and interests of both. It is important to be clear that tension and conflict, easy to generate in an atmosphere of fear and distrust, can do immense harm to all.
HISTORICAL & CULTURAL LEGACIES
Historically near neighbours, India and China had very little contact or understanding of each other. Two long but intermittent periods in early history may be considered as exceptions. One was the epoch of the Nalanda University in India, which flourished nearly two millennia ago and brought the world�s scholars to its gates. This was amongst the biggest confidence building measure in the history of Asia. The other was through the Great Silk Routes emanating from China with some branches passing through India and going to the world, enriching both countries. This was an early example of globalized commerce that benefited the entire then known world.
The absence of recent contact failed to develop in India an understanding of the �Middle Kingdom�. On its part China has never quite grasped the importance of democracy, pluralism and diversity of India, which with all its imperfections, constitute the quintessence of the Indian state and its nationalism.
Instead, our awareness of each other in modern times can be traced to the 19th Century, where it was coloured by colonial influences with their national interests firmly centred in European capitals. This brief interlude in history was the only period when neither India nor China was a leading nation in the world with neither in a position to shape its own destiny. Yet, it may be argued that spared outright conquest, Beijing secured its national interests somewhat better than Delhi. Many of today�s problems originate from that period, even though goodwill between both nations remained intact. Examples from India were Rabindranath Tagore and Dr Kotnis.
In his highly controversial first visit to China in 1924 Tagore said at a lecture in Shanghai, �I want to win your heart, now that I am close to you, with the faith that is in me of a great future for you, and for Asia, when your country rises and gives expression to its own spirit -a future in the joy of which we shall all share.� Tagore visited China purely as a poet, yet his words set the tone and trend for India-China relations till the 1950�s. Premier Wen Jiabao hit the right note, when in his first engagement in Delhi in 2010 he visited a school named after Tagore and drew attention to the renewed attention in China today to his humanistic writings.
Congress Party sent a small medical mission led by Dr Kotnis to help the Eighth Route Army in its War of Resistance in 1938. This team�s dedication and service to the People�s Liberation Army left a deep impression in the minds of the members of the Long March generation. This was the backdrop in which Nehru reached out to China in the 1950�s.
A rude awakening to the Cold War realities of the 20th Century came about in the deteriorating relations in the end of 1950�s and to the 1962 War. The impact of this was different in the two countries. In China the average citizen had little knowledge of this War. They were in the grip of a totally controlled media. Besides, the population at large was grappling with life and death questions of the consequences of the Great Leap Forward. But, the impact in India was traumatic. Essentially it transformed in to a deep sense of betrayal at several levels, a sentiment that left deep scars.
This contrast was reflected personally to me in June 1991 in many places in China where as a General Officer of the Indian Army and as the first Indian military guest of the PLA in over three decades, one was repeatedly accosted with the statement; �there are a thousand reasons why we should be friends and none at all why we should be enemies�. This was a sentiment that few would have shared in India at the time. As a first step in reconciliation we need to put this current history firmly behind us. This possibility was brought home to me personally through a brief encounter in Vietnam in the autumn of 2010. Shocked to see the utter devastation caused to innocent Vietnamese civilians in the most massive bombing in world history, in the deep underground bunkers north of Ho Chi Minh city, we asked if it was possible to forgive an enemy that caused these horrors. I was struck by the response of the young Vietnamese guide. He said; �If we were to hate the Americans, then how can we not also hate the French, the British, the Australians and the Chinese? We need to put history behind us if we hope to build a future�.
Many would object to this idealistic approach to hard issues of national interests and they have a point. But, continuing with historic animosities is not the best foundation for national policy. In the realpolitik world of the 21st Century we will need to carefully craft a balance between our concerns and interests and evolve a cooperative relationship.
THE NEED TO CHANGE MINDSETS
The litany of issues between us is long and complex. A short paper such as this will only indicate broad approaches that India should adopt on some of the more important issues.
The border issue easily heads any list and is also the most urgent. Even though no shot has been fired in anger across the Line of Actual Control since the last twenty six years, an unresolved border can no longer be �left to the next generation� to resolve. Already more than a generation has passed since Deng Xiaoping�s statement and this generation has not proved wiser. There is too much at stake today to pend this issue for long. Lingering problems tend to fester and often can be brought to light from hidden memories to buttress misgivings on other issues. Political sensitivity of this issue to both India and China however, has to be accepted and haste has to be made even if slowly.
The fundamental reality about borders in the 21st Century is that none can be changed arbitrarily between two sovereign nations of some consequence without causing great destruction. Copious blood has already been shed over this border and today both nations have substantial nuclear weapons as well as conventional arms capability to persuade us to rule out this option. If that much is accepted, the only option that remains is a negotiated settlement. There is no doubt that each side should be prepared to make substantial compromises. But, the framework of a settlement has already been agreed in 2005 at Premier Wen�s last visit in 2005 under the Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the IndiaChina Boundary Question. This clearly rules out the possibility of exchanging populated areas.
While there may be concerns today to make the borders porous, access to holy lands and pilgrimage places should have easy though controlled access. This will address so called claims based on religious sentiments. Fortunately most places along our common borders are uninhabited and hence minor changes in lines drawn on maps should have easier chance of acceptance.
The question of the Kashmir border with China has caused recent concern in India. This need not really be the case. Once again on the Jammu & Kashmir question the position of both India and Pakistan has evolved. An exchange of territory, howsoever desirable to either side is not a realistic and even a desirable option. Hence converting the de-facto to de-jure is the issue between India and Pakistan. This will also have to be the option between India and China. This would require a leap of faith and bold political leadership.
Admitted that such leaps are not the preferred options for realistic politicians aspiring to return to office a background of trust and friendship has to be created. Which in turn should be based on carefully crafted win-win situations for both. This is where other major approaches become important.
Now that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao�s visit to India in Nov 2010 has ended, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of India-China relations and where it is headed. Kishore Mahbubani, the distinguished Asian thinker from Singapore, described India-China relations as, �the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st Century�. Indeed, historically, civilizationally, from the perspective of economic benefits to the region or from peace and security in Asia and the world; this is a relationship that is likely to shape the global future.
There is no scope for mistakes. Two large nations that are simultaneously reemerging at a rapid pace, thus this relationship has to be based on carefully balanced enlightened self interests. To achieve this will call for delicate negotiations based on our respective genius, taking account of our differences, yet accommodating the genuine concerns and interests of both. It is important to be clear that tension and conflict, easy to generate in an atmosphere of fear and distrust, can do immense harm to all.
HISTORICAL & CULTURAL LEGACIES
Historically near neighbours, India and China had very little contact or understanding of each other. Two long but intermittent periods in early history may be considered as exceptions. One was the epoch of the Nalanda University in India, which flourished nearly two millennia ago and brought the world�s scholars to its gates. This was amongst the biggest confidence building measure in the history of Asia. The other was through the Great Silk Routes emanating from China with some branches passing through India and going to the world, enriching both countries. This was an early example of globalized commerce that benefited the entire then known world.
The absence of recent contact failed to develop in India an understanding of the �Middle Kingdom�. On its part China has never quite grasped the importance of democracy, pluralism and diversity of India, which with all its imperfections, constitute the quintessence of the Indian state and its nationalism.
Instead, our awareness of each other in modern times can be traced to the 19th Century, where it was coloured by colonial influences with their national interests firmly centred in European capitals. This brief interlude in history was the only period when neither India nor China was a leading nation in the world with neither in a position to shape its own destiny. Yet, it may be argued that spared outright conquest, Beijing secured its national interests somewhat better than Delhi. Many of today�s problems originate from that period, even though goodwill between both nations remained intact. Examples from India were Rabindranath Tagore and Dr Kotnis.
In his highly controversial first visit to China in 1924 Tagore said at a lecture in Shanghai, �I want to win your heart, now that I am close to you, with the faith that is in me of a great future for you, and for Asia, when your country rises and gives expression to its own spirit -a future in the joy of which we shall all share.� Tagore visited China purely as a poet, yet his words set the tone and trend for India-China relations till the 1950�s. Premier Wen Jiabao hit the right note, when in his first engagement in Delhi in 2010 he visited a school named after Tagore and drew attention to the renewed attention in China today to his humanistic writings.
Congress Party sent a small medical mission led by Dr Kotnis to help the Eighth Route Army in its War of Resistance in 1938. This team�s dedication and service to the People�s Liberation Army left a deep impression in the minds of the members of the Long March generation. This was the backdrop in which Nehru reached out to China in the 1950�s.
A rude awakening to the Cold War realities of the 20th Century came about in the deteriorating relations in the end of 1950�s and to the 1962 War. The impact of this was different in the two countries. In China the average citizen had little knowledge of this War. They were in the grip of a totally controlled media. Besides, the population at large was grappling with life and death questions of the consequences of the Great Leap Forward. But, the impact in India was traumatic. Essentially it transformed in to a deep sense of betrayal at several levels, a sentiment that left deep scars.
This contrast was reflected personally to me in June 1991 in many places in China where as a General Officer of the Indian Army and as the first Indian military guest of the PLA in over three decades, one was repeatedly accosted with the statement; �there are a thousand reasons why we should be friends and none at all why we should be enemies�. This was a sentiment that few would have shared in India at the time. As a first step in reconciliation we need to put this current history firmly behind us. This possibility was brought home to me personally through a brief encounter in Vietnam in the autumn of 2010. Shocked to see the utter devastation caused to innocent Vietnamese civilians in the most massive bombing in world history, in the deep underground bunkers north of Ho Chi Minh city, we asked if it was possible to forgive an enemy that caused these horrors. I was struck by the response of the young Vietnamese guide. He said; �If we were to hate the Americans, then how can we not also hate the French, the British, the Australians and the Chinese? We need to put history behind us if we hope to build a future�.
Many would object to this idealistic approach to hard issues of national interests and they have a point. But, continuing with historic animosities is not the best foundation for national policy. In the realpolitik world of the 21st Century we will need to carefully craft a balance between our concerns and interests and evolve a cooperative relationship.
THE NEED TO CHANGE MINDSETS
The litany of issues between us is long and complex. A short paper such as this will only indicate broad approaches that India should adopt on some of the more important issues.
The border issue easily heads any list and is also the most urgent. Even though no shot has been fired in anger across the Line of Actual Control since the last twenty six years, an unresolved border can no longer be �left to the next generation� to resolve. Already more than a generation has passed since Deng Xiaoping�s statement and this generation has not proved wiser. There is too much at stake today to pend this issue for long. Lingering problems tend to fester and often can be brought to light from hidden memories to buttress misgivings on other issues. Political sensitivity of this issue to both India and China however, has to be accepted and haste has to be made even if slowly.
The fundamental reality about borders in the 21st Century is that none can be changed arbitrarily between two sovereign nations of some consequence without causing great destruction. Copious blood has already been shed over this border and today both nations have substantial nuclear weapons as well as conventional arms capability to persuade us to rule out this option. If that much is accepted, the only option that remains is a negotiated settlement. There is no doubt that each side should be prepared to make substantial compromises. But, the framework of a settlement has already been agreed in 2005 at Premier Wen�s last visit in 2005 under the Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the IndiaChina Boundary Question. This clearly rules out the possibility of exchanging populated areas.
While there may be concerns today to make the borders porous, access to holy lands and pilgrimage places should have easy though controlled access. This will address so called claims based on religious sentiments. Fortunately most places along our common borders are uninhabited and hence minor changes in lines drawn on maps should have easier chance of acceptance.
The question of the Kashmir border with China has caused recent concern in India. This need not really be the case. Once again on the Jammu & Kashmir question the position of both India and Pakistan has evolved. An exchange of territory, howsoever desirable to either side is not a realistic and even a desirable option. Hence converting the de-facto to de-jure is the issue between India and Pakistan. This will also have to be the option between India and China. This would require a leap of faith and bold political leadership.
Admitted that such leaps are not the preferred options for realistic politicians aspiring to return to office a background of trust and friendship has to be created. Which in turn should be based on carefully crafted win-win situations for both. This is where other major approaches become important.
