GC_US_64
12-26 04:29 PM
Kudlow and company are airing a debate on Lou Dobbs Goofy economics and skewed numbers at 5pm eastern time.
wallpaper WWE All Stars Getting Free
Macaca
12-30 08:20 AM
2007: Democrats in Control, but Thwarted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123000447.html) By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press, Dec 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:56 AM
A cardiologist died and was given an elaborate funeral.
A huge heart covered in flowers stood behind the casket during the service. Following the eulogy, the heart opened, and the casket rolled inside. The heart then closed, sealing the doctor in the beautiful heart forever.
At that point, one of the mourners burst into laughter. When confronted, he said, "I'm sorry, I was just thinking of my own funeral. You see I'm a gynecologist."
At that point, the proctologist fainted.
A huge heart covered in flowers stood behind the casket during the service. Following the eulogy, the heart opened, and the casket rolled inside. The heart then closed, sealing the doctor in the beautiful heart forever.
At that point, one of the mourners burst into laughter. When confronted, he said, "I'm sorry, I was just thinking of my own funeral. You see I'm a gynecologist."
At that point, the proctologist fainted.
2011 WWE all stars packshot.jpg
sanju
05-16 11:10 PM
Infact pro immigrants and Corporations are arguing that shortage of skills and they are not displacing US workers. If that is true why cannot they accept the conditions that they will not displace US workers. If you accept that you do not mind replacing some american workers also then all of your points are valid. Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards. You will never get American people support for that. But we all are lobbying based on the shortage of skills. So we should be ready to reduce H1b when demand goes down or accept the conditions for non displacement of US workers. Right now demand is more so US will absorb even 200K H1bs. But you need to look what happened between 2000 to 2003. So many layoffs. Part of reason was economy but other part was due to H1b and outsourcing
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do – Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define “replacing some American workers”. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn’t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say – from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
You will never get American people support for that.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don’t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people’s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? – around 70%
Do you know the % of “American people” saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? – 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let’s keep this argument of “American People” out of this debate.
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or American. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn’t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. If employees on H-1Bs were unproductive then why are employers asking for more H-1Bs. I am sure my employer is not in love with me to give me check every two weeks. And if that is how it works best for the competitiveness and for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situations/competitions but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or someone on H-1B, takes my job. And I assure you that I won't whine about it. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out is going to get you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris’ underwear - to argue against H-1B and against green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to “not waste my time with idiot like yourself”.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don’t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don’t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you have a low opinion about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or you are not technically sound to compete with others around you. And just like IEEE-USA, you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like “displacement of US workers”.
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do – Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define “replacing some American workers”. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn’t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say – from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
You will never get American people support for that.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don’t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people’s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? – around 70%
Do you know the % of “American people” saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? – 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let’s keep this argument of “American People” out of this debate.
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or American. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn’t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. If employees on H-1Bs were unproductive then why are employers asking for more H-1Bs. I am sure my employer is not in love with me to give me check every two weeks. And if that is how it works best for the competitiveness and for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situations/competitions but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or someone on H-1B, takes my job. And I assure you that I won't whine about it. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out is going to get you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris’ underwear - to argue against H-1B and against green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to “not waste my time with idiot like yourself”.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don’t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don’t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you have a low opinion about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or you are not technically sound to compete with others around you. And just like IEEE-USA, you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like “displacement of US workers”.
more...
cinqsit
03-24 07:46 PM
Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
USCIS probably does that to identify whether the job offer is bonafide. Especially with the rampant misuse of the system I am guessing thats how they make sure that all these problems like benching without pay, layering, working on lower salary and higher per diems are weeded out
Painful as it may sound -- to say the least it is in our(employee's) long term interest. Though it appears as though its a measure designed to be against the spirit of at will employee-employer relationship I think its going to cleanse the system and make it more viable for everyone -- clients, employers and employees
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
USCIS probably does that to identify whether the job offer is bonafide. Especially with the rampant misuse of the system I am guessing thats how they make sure that all these problems like benching without pay, layering, working on lower salary and higher per diems are weeded out
Painful as it may sound -- to say the least it is in our(employee's) long term interest. Though it appears as though its a measure designed to be against the spirit of at will employee-employer relationship I think its going to cleanse the system and make it more viable for everyone -- clients, employers and employees
masaternyc
05-13 05:12 PM
I heard many stories that consultants are selling labor certifications and this lead to a big back log.... people who were last in the line are in front of the line now....consultants created a business from these labor certifications and are making lots of money...its fair for the government or uscis to apply this bill and control this black business....
more...
rtarar
08-06 09:33 AM
IITian or MITian its immaterial.
You posts earlier have proved themselves that you are a certified selfish,arrogant and a bonafied idiot.
Some body really took care to create a piece like you.
You posts earlier have proved themselves that you are a certified selfish,arrogant and a bonafied idiot.
Some body really took care to create a piece like you.
2010 WWE All Stars XBOX 360 DLC
gimme_GC2006
03-24 10:12 AM
Dude ask your employer to mail it himself to USCIS. You are not asking these documents for your timepass these are requested by USCIS so forward this mail to him and ask him to respond any ways its his responsiblity to support this GC application since it is his company that is asking for green card.
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
more...
puddonhead
06-26 07:57 PM
FYI - Historical Census of Housing Tables - Home Values (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Edit: Errrr - the median prices actually quadrupled - and not merely doubled, while the home sizes increased by about 2.3 - 2.4 times. This means roughly 1.6 times actual appreciation - i.e. less than 1% of compounded interest (1% over 60 years = 1.82 times). Compare that to the safest vehicle out there - TIPS and tell me who would have been better off - the guy who bought his home in 1940 or the one who bought TIPS (assuming his net cash flow was zero - i.e. he earned the same as he spent for the house).
hair WWE All Stars Review
nojoke
04-14 04:15 PM
Exactly. now before you jump ..let me say that this may not be applicable to you. but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a wrong decision. (and common sense says the same thing). Because they bought the house - either they had to slog extra or take up 2 jobs and/or spouse has to work. some of them had a baby sitter ..who would put the kid in front of the TV all day. some of the kids are/were at home all day with their mother (but no friends) and hence they were lonely. (wife does not know how to drive or only one car) ..some of the luckier ones were the ones who could afford to put them in all day daycare
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well).
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
Exactly. This argument of buying house for kids is no argument. You can argue on either side. The problem is when NKR made a statement that it is big deal to not buy a house because your kid will ask "can you give back my childhood?". As if a 7 year old will regret not owning a house. The child will regret not owning a playstation3, eat chocalates all the time, play all time. We all know what we wanted when we were kids.;)
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well).
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
Exactly. This argument of buying house for kids is no argument. You can argue on either side. The problem is when NKR made a statement that it is big deal to not buy a house because your kid will ask "can you give back my childhood?". As if a 7 year old will regret not owning a house. The child will regret not owning a playstation3, eat chocalates all the time, play all time. We all know what we wanted when we were kids.;)
more...
GC_US_64
12-26 05:08 PM
CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.
hot WWE All Stars new DLC detailed
unitednations
08-03 01:52 PM
Hi United Nation,
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
No; it is not hard to use.
However; the way people use labor substitution, future base employment, labors in fast processing states, going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; job descriptions not matching, companies getting ability to pay queries on approved cases; uscis changing their interpretations of laws/regulations, people getting off h-1b after six years.... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
No; it is not hard to use.
However; the way people use labor substitution, future base employment, labors in fast processing states, going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; job descriptions not matching, companies getting ability to pay queries on approved cases; uscis changing their interpretations of laws/regulations, people getting off h-1b after six years.... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
more...
house Walkthrough: WWE All Stars
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
tattoo the demo for WWE All Stars
Beemar
12-27 03:25 PM
Pakistan is increasing behaving like a psychopath who is suicidal and homicidal at the same time. Terror attacks like Mumbai are really a desperate cry for help. You know, like, stop me or I will do this again! Stop me before I hurt myself!
It is so much obsessively in love with Kashmir that even Kashmiris are getting jitters about its fatal attraction. Kashmiris are like, you know, this guy Pakistan gives me creeps. He is always staring at me, following me..
The world needs to intervene now! Not when Pakistan ends up in the inevitable tragedy.
It is so much obsessively in love with Kashmir that even Kashmiris are getting jitters about its fatal attraction. Kashmiris are like, you know, this guy Pakistan gives me creeps. He is always staring at me, following me..
The world needs to intervene now! Not when Pakistan ends up in the inevitable tragedy.
more...
pictures WWE All Stars: Superstars
Macaca
12-21 09:53 AM
Despite �High Note,� Bush Scolds Congress as Wasteful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21bush.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198249370-yXwz0kW/+W6bJYa4zIwlqA) By STEVEN LEE MYERS | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.
Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.
But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.
�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�
The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.
Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.
�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�
For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.
�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�
At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.
Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.
�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.
Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.
�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�
dresses makeup wwe all stars roster.
unitednations
08-02 06:58 PM
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
People always read what they want to read.
Read the memo and they always mention "intent", "good faith".
USCIS always leaves significant wiggle room for themselves when they want to deny cases.
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
People always read what they want to read.
Read the memo and they always mention "intent", "good faith".
USCIS always leaves significant wiggle room for themselves when they want to deny cases.
more...
makeup WWE All Stars to WWE is the
anand2007
07-07 11:42 PM
I wish you a good luck and hope that your issue will be solved. contact good lawyer soon.
girlfriend Walkthrough: WWE All Stars
CreatedToday
01-07 05:27 PM
Looks like Muhammad fooled his followers or enticed them!
Apart from Lesbians, the virgins could be Male, Underage girls, Old Ladies or even a eunuch! :D
You lived in India and hate India, because of your ....
..... . 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.
Apart from Lesbians, the virgins could be Male, Underage girls, Old Ladies or even a eunuch! :D
You lived in India and hate India, because of your ....
..... . 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.
hairstyles WWE All Stars Primer Guide
whoever
04-07 06:51 PM
yeah i think so it wont get through because i will tell you currently i work as a consultant for a very big company, fortune 500 company and they even work on projects for US govt. what does it make them -- not consulting company? they cant be prohibited from hiring ppl on H1 or hiring consultants on H1? the bill wont see the light of the day -- i am sure.
malaGCPahije
07-14 09:29 AM
Do you have any idea what are you talking about and why are you talking about? In which year you entered into this GC hell queue? I would suggest you to go through last 8 years of EB category happenings and then you would realize why EB3-India are frustrated....I would generally write but before that I would think first and then write. Best Luck.
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy. I have contributed in each of IV effort knowing fully well that Eb3I is not going to be benefited by the effort. Still someone was getting the benefit. Now if EB3I want to do something, what is the issue? If a person from Eb2I with PD of 2006 feels that the reason behind efforts taken by a EB3 I person with PD of 2001/2002 is jealousy, then the EB2I person is being very narrow in his/her thinking. It should not take a huge amount of brainpower to realize the frustration and sadness the EB3 I person would be feeling. Irrespective of this I think a lot of people who contribute to IV campaigns are EB3I.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy. I have contributed in each of IV effort knowing fully well that Eb3I is not going to be benefited by the effort. Still someone was getting the benefit. Now if EB3I want to do something, what is the issue? If a person from Eb2I with PD of 2006 feels that the reason behind efforts taken by a EB3 I person with PD of 2001/2002 is jealousy, then the EB2I person is being very narrow in his/her thinking. It should not take a huge amount of brainpower to realize the frustration and sadness the EB3 I person would be feeling. Irrespective of this I think a lot of people who contribute to IV campaigns are EB3I.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
singhsa3
10-01 05:10 PM
God knows what in store for us. Nothing except our determination is in our favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment