Marphad
01-09 01:00 PM
Read this: especially para with title: Land grievance against Indian Muslims
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
wallpaper Bruce Springsteen Greatest
nogc_noproblem
08-26 07:25 PM
Something to think about: "How To Save the Government $5 Million!"
A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, lasting until he is 80 years old.
Assuming the next president lives to age 80:
Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension, as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms, so would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore, it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.
A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, lasting until he is 80 years old.
Assuming the next president lives to age 80:
Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension, as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms, so would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore, it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.
amoljak
08-11 09:23 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Hello,
In the Lou Dobbs Tonight, which aired on Aired August 10, 2006 - 18:00 ET, Lou had John Miano from the programmer's guild on his show. John Milano claimed that he did not get the information about H1B visas from the government. Lou did not question his claim nor did he make any efforts to validate his claims. The information he was looking for is available here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
The programmer's guild knows about this source, as they have used it selectively at other times to further their agenda. So this part of the program was a clear lie.
The other guest (Michael Maxwell) asserted that H1B program is "being gamed by both terrorists and foreign agents". He did not present any evidence for that and neither did Lou Dobbs ask for any. I am in the US on an H1B visa, and these comments were totally offensive to me.
It is sad to see that CNN is letting unsubstantiated claims and lies to be perpetuated on a prime time "news" show. May be the show should be called "Lou Dobbs' Mudslinging Tonight"
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Hello,
In the Lou Dobbs Tonight, which aired on Aired August 10, 2006 - 18:00 ET, Lou had John Miano from the programmer's guild on his show. John Milano claimed that he did not get the information about H1B visas from the government. Lou did not question his claim nor did he make any efforts to validate his claims. The information he was looking for is available here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
The programmer's guild knows about this source, as they have used it selectively at other times to further their agenda. So this part of the program was a clear lie.
The other guest (Michael Maxwell) asserted that H1B program is "being gamed by both terrorists and foreign agents". He did not present any evidence for that and neither did Lou Dobbs ask for any. I am in the US on an H1B visa, and these comments were totally offensive to me.
It is sad to see that CNN is letting unsubstantiated claims and lies to be perpetuated on a prime time "news" show. May be the show should be called "Lou Dobbs' Mudslinging Tonight"
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
2011 2011 Bruce Springsteen - Greatest bruce springsteen greatest hits album
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
more...
psvk
08-05 06:02 PM
We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Print this out and pass to your partner for a greater understanding:
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
Macaca
12-10 08:55 PM
Moving fast: Tech lobbyist races to results (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/moving-fast-tech-lobbyist-races-to-results-2007-12-11.html) By Kevin Bogardus | The Hill, December 11, 2007
�I really don�t have a strong partisan style. I just like getting things done,� said Hellmann.
Under his helm, the lobbying team at the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) has earned a reputation as a smart and aggressive advocate on Capitol Hill for the high-tech cause.
Hellmann, 46, joined ITI in 2001 after several years advising House Republican leaders, including then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). But politics was not always foremost on the Florida native�s mind. He describes himself as a former �beach bum� who did not vote in the 1980 presidential election because he could not choose between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
�Now I know better,� Hellmann said.
By college, Hellmann�s interest in Washington had begun to simmer. He majored in political science and says he typically flipped to C-SPAN instead of MTV. In 1984, he took a job as a paid intern to then-Rep. Buddy MacKay (D-Fla.).
Hellmann soon after switched sides and began to move up the ranks. He worked for several prominent GOP lawmakers, such as Rep. Newt Gingrich (Ga.), before becoming a key adviser to party leadership. There, Hellmann helped to push through welfare reform, anti-poverty legislation and the No Child Left Behind Act.
The lobbyist always strived for results in Congress and saw the need for both parties to work together. Hellmann put that philosophy into practice as the liaison between then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and the coalition of Blue Dog Democrats.
�He knows substance, but even more importantly, he knows the institutional quirks and the process as well as anybody in town,� said Rep. Adam Putman (Fla.), the House Republican Conference chairman. Putnam credits Hellmann with educating members on �how the technology sector is a driver of the economy.�
As ITI�s senior vice president of government relations, Hellmann says it is not difficult to lobby for his trade group�s members � corporations like Dell and eBay � since they are �the coolest companies in the world.�
�We call it the �wow� effect,� said Hellmann. But gone are the days when high-powered executives for tech companies could fly into Washington once a year, meet with lawmakers and expect to achieve what they wanted on Capitol Hill, according to the lobbyist. Now, a daily, active presence is necessary to keep check on Congress, which can affect the industry on multiple fronts.
Increasingly, other well-heeled business lobbies with decades of experience in Washington are weighing in against tech companies� interests. �We have to match them in shoe leather,� said Hellmann.
Adam Kovacevich, Google�s Washington spokesman, described Hellmann as an excellent advocate for the tech cause � a �good consensus-builder� who has �a great understanding of what is actually possible on the Hill.�
�He has never stopped building relationships with new generations of staff,� said Kovacevich, who worked at ITI in 2005.
To maintain ITI�s lobbying prowess, the trade group executive has helped assemble a team of �type-A personalities� who can work with both parties and understand how Congress works. Each lobbyist has between five and 10 years of government service, Hellmann estimated.
�With Rahm, we moved a million miles a minute and we got things done. I felt ITI worked the same way,� said Jon Hoganson, who recently joined ITI from House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel�s (Ill.) office. �It wasn�t about white papers and setting up meetings.�
Hellmann credits ITI�s quick action with helping to convince Congress to set a date for the country to move from analog to digital television. The trade group and its member companies formed the DTV Coalition, and stressed in Hill meetings that the sale of spectrum bandwidth could generate $10 billion in federal revenue, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
More recently, ITI has waded into the emotional battle over immigration. Hellmann�s German-born parents came to America in 1956 on his father�s employment visa, so the debate has special resonance for the lobbyist.
�There is a strong nativist element in Washington right now,� said Hellmann. Republicans have weighed in against immigration reform.
Democrats, meanwhile, have railed against trade deals, another ITI priority.
With so much on the trade group�s plate, Hellmann plans to keep ITI up to date on Washington�s happenings and sees no need to slow down.
�Politics is a fast-moving sport,� Hellmann said.
�I really don�t have a strong partisan style. I just like getting things done,� said Hellmann.
Under his helm, the lobbying team at the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) has earned a reputation as a smart and aggressive advocate on Capitol Hill for the high-tech cause.
Hellmann, 46, joined ITI in 2001 after several years advising House Republican leaders, including then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). But politics was not always foremost on the Florida native�s mind. He describes himself as a former �beach bum� who did not vote in the 1980 presidential election because he could not choose between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
�Now I know better,� Hellmann said.
By college, Hellmann�s interest in Washington had begun to simmer. He majored in political science and says he typically flipped to C-SPAN instead of MTV. In 1984, he took a job as a paid intern to then-Rep. Buddy MacKay (D-Fla.).
Hellmann soon after switched sides and began to move up the ranks. He worked for several prominent GOP lawmakers, such as Rep. Newt Gingrich (Ga.), before becoming a key adviser to party leadership. There, Hellmann helped to push through welfare reform, anti-poverty legislation and the No Child Left Behind Act.
The lobbyist always strived for results in Congress and saw the need for both parties to work together. Hellmann put that philosophy into practice as the liaison between then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and the coalition of Blue Dog Democrats.
�He knows substance, but even more importantly, he knows the institutional quirks and the process as well as anybody in town,� said Rep. Adam Putman (Fla.), the House Republican Conference chairman. Putnam credits Hellmann with educating members on �how the technology sector is a driver of the economy.�
As ITI�s senior vice president of government relations, Hellmann says it is not difficult to lobby for his trade group�s members � corporations like Dell and eBay � since they are �the coolest companies in the world.�
�We call it the �wow� effect,� said Hellmann. But gone are the days when high-powered executives for tech companies could fly into Washington once a year, meet with lawmakers and expect to achieve what they wanted on Capitol Hill, according to the lobbyist. Now, a daily, active presence is necessary to keep check on Congress, which can affect the industry on multiple fronts.
Increasingly, other well-heeled business lobbies with decades of experience in Washington are weighing in against tech companies� interests. �We have to match them in shoe leather,� said Hellmann.
Adam Kovacevich, Google�s Washington spokesman, described Hellmann as an excellent advocate for the tech cause � a �good consensus-builder� who has �a great understanding of what is actually possible on the Hill.�
�He has never stopped building relationships with new generations of staff,� said Kovacevich, who worked at ITI in 2005.
To maintain ITI�s lobbying prowess, the trade group executive has helped assemble a team of �type-A personalities� who can work with both parties and understand how Congress works. Each lobbyist has between five and 10 years of government service, Hellmann estimated.
�With Rahm, we moved a million miles a minute and we got things done. I felt ITI worked the same way,� said Jon Hoganson, who recently joined ITI from House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel�s (Ill.) office. �It wasn�t about white papers and setting up meetings.�
Hellmann credits ITI�s quick action with helping to convince Congress to set a date for the country to move from analog to digital television. The trade group and its member companies formed the DTV Coalition, and stressed in Hill meetings that the sale of spectrum bandwidth could generate $10 billion in federal revenue, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
More recently, ITI has waded into the emotional battle over immigration. Hellmann�s German-born parents came to America in 1956 on his father�s employment visa, so the debate has special resonance for the lobbyist.
�There is a strong nativist element in Washington right now,� said Hellmann. Republicans have weighed in against immigration reform.
Democrats, meanwhile, have railed against trade deals, another ITI priority.
With so much on the trade group�s plate, Hellmann plans to keep ITI up to date on Washington�s happenings and sees no need to slow down.
�Politics is a fast-moving sport,� Hellmann said.
more...
yrspassby
08-07 04:47 PM
A retired gentleman went to the social security office to apply for Social Security.
The woman behind the counter asked him for his driver's license to verify his age. He looked in his pockets and realized he had left his wallet at home. He told the woman that he was very sorry but he seemed to have left his wallet at home. "I will have to go home and come back later." The woman says, "Unbutton your shirt." So he opens his shirt revealing curly silver hair. She says, "That silver hair on your chest is proof enough for me" and she processed his Social Security application.
When he gets home, the man excitedly tells his wife about his experience at the social security office. She says, "You should have dropped your pants. You might have gotten disability too."
The woman behind the counter asked him for his driver's license to verify his age. He looked in his pockets and realized he had left his wallet at home. He told the woman that he was very sorry but he seemed to have left his wallet at home. "I will have to go home and come back later." The woman says, "Unbutton your shirt." So he opens his shirt revealing curly silver hair. She says, "That silver hair on your chest is proof enough for me" and she processed his Social Security application.
When he gets home, the man excitedly tells his wife about his experience at the social security office. She says, "You should have dropped your pants. You might have gotten disability too."
2010 Merchandise bearing Bruce
gsc999
04-06 11:32 PM
Certain provisions of this bill will create unnecessary hurdles for many H1_B visa holders and employers.
Thanks for highlighting. Lets take appropriate action.
Thanks for highlighting. Lets take appropriate action.
more...
.jpg "Bruce Springsteen - Greatest")
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
hair images greatest hits album.
gcisadawg
12-27 12:04 AM
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
more...
nojoke
04-06 04:50 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
I hope this is not a joke. You have any idea what kind of downturn we will be facing? Why did Fed jump in to bail out Bear Stearns against all the criticism? What they did is considered illegal by many. But still they did it anyway. Because the Government is very afraid of this shaky economy. We were just few steps away from bank runs.
My friend bought house in Atlanta and within 3 months the builder sold the same model houses for 100k less. We are going to see a 30% to 50% reduction depending on the area.
People who wanted to convince themselves said it will not happen in california. As things started unfolding, they said it will not happen in Bay area. Then they said it will not happen in San Jose and Santa Clara. Now they are saying not in their block.
If you still think a good school will protect your house price, go ahead and catch the falling knife. To give you some idea of what people here are thinking -------------
“Sinclair: ‘But the prices kept going up. At one time, our house was worth over $600,000. In fact, a model just like this they were asking $699,000 — and now things have entirely collapsed.”
“A similar house down the street is already in foreclosure and the bank is entertaining offers for under $200,000.”
“The Sinclairs stopped paying their mortgage in October when the payment jumped from $3,000 a month to $4,000. Now they’re basically squatting in their own home, living there for free. Sinclair: ‘We had to start making some hard choices, which included going into foreclosure on our house and kind of starting again.’”
“Sinclair: ‘We would do it if the equity was there, but in a case where we’re already so behind… Imagine that for five years, say, we’re gonna pay four grand a month and then we’re just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we’re throwing away money.’”
--------------------------------
They are just walking away from their house because they see that their house value is going down. This all will feedback and cause further decline in the prices. Don't think that the prices will be back in 5 years. For someone who bought a house in 1989, it took 8 years to 9 years to get back to their purchase price. This time it will be worse.
Guys, people are talking about Depression and you guys want to buy house in a good school district. These FB(search google what it means), are waiting for some greater fool than themselves to unload their burden. This is why you will be called "greater fool"
If you want to loose your 200K in 2 years, go ahead. It is your money. Don't tell that you weren't warned, like all these mortgage companies and banks who are now saying - "who would have thought it would get this worse".
Land is plentiful in california and NJ. There are building restrictions artificially imposed to keep the prices high. But this is past. No realtors are saying "we are not making any more land" these days. I have been following the housing blogs and they are laughing at Indians who are buying here in Bay area. Do some research before spewing the realtor propaganda and don't compare situation in India with US. Sorry for the rant. I am doing this with good intention to save atleast some of you guys.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
I hope this is not a joke. You have any idea what kind of downturn we will be facing? Why did Fed jump in to bail out Bear Stearns against all the criticism? What they did is considered illegal by many. But still they did it anyway. Because the Government is very afraid of this shaky economy. We were just few steps away from bank runs.
My friend bought house in Atlanta and within 3 months the builder sold the same model houses for 100k less. We are going to see a 30% to 50% reduction depending on the area.
People who wanted to convince themselves said it will not happen in california. As things started unfolding, they said it will not happen in Bay area. Then they said it will not happen in San Jose and Santa Clara. Now they are saying not in their block.
If you still think a good school will protect your house price, go ahead and catch the falling knife. To give you some idea of what people here are thinking -------------
“Sinclair: ‘But the prices kept going up. At one time, our house was worth over $600,000. In fact, a model just like this they were asking $699,000 — and now things have entirely collapsed.”
“A similar house down the street is already in foreclosure and the bank is entertaining offers for under $200,000.”
“The Sinclairs stopped paying their mortgage in October when the payment jumped from $3,000 a month to $4,000. Now they’re basically squatting in their own home, living there for free. Sinclair: ‘We had to start making some hard choices, which included going into foreclosure on our house and kind of starting again.’”
“Sinclair: ‘We would do it if the equity was there, but in a case where we’re already so behind… Imagine that for five years, say, we’re gonna pay four grand a month and then we’re just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we’re throwing away money.’”
--------------------------------
They are just walking away from their house because they see that their house value is going down. This all will feedback and cause further decline in the prices. Don't think that the prices will be back in 5 years. For someone who bought a house in 1989, it took 8 years to 9 years to get back to their purchase price. This time it will be worse.
Guys, people are talking about Depression and you guys want to buy house in a good school district. These FB(search google what it means), are waiting for some greater fool than themselves to unload their burden. This is why you will be called "greater fool"
If you want to loose your 200K in 2 years, go ahead. It is your money. Don't tell that you weren't warned, like all these mortgage companies and banks who are now saying - "who would have thought it would get this worse".
Land is plentiful in california and NJ. There are building restrictions artificially imposed to keep the prices high. But this is past. No realtors are saying "we are not making any more land" these days. I have been following the housing blogs and they are laughing at Indians who are buying here in Bay area. Do some research before spewing the realtor propaganda and don't compare situation in India with US. Sorry for the rant. I am doing this with good intention to save atleast some of you guys.
hot ruce springsteen greatest
unitednations
03-24 02:50 AM
Just some other info for people.
One company I know has this hot list with their employee names. They send it out to their prime vendors or do their current clients.
Somehow one of the anti immigrant groups was able to get on the e-mail list.
Person from one of these groups responded back to the company with a statement saying that it is illegal to have people on bench and if any of the following LCA's belonged to the named people in the e-mail (ie., hot list) then he would report to department of labor of the violations. Person went through the pain of downloading the LCA's for the particular company and attaching it to the e-mail.
Now; who knows whether person passed on the e-mail to depatment of labor, uscis.
One company I know has this hot list with their employee names. They send it out to their prime vendors or do their current clients.
Somehow one of the anti immigrant groups was able to get on the e-mail list.
Person from one of these groups responded back to the company with a statement saying that it is illegal to have people on bench and if any of the following LCA's belonged to the named people in the e-mail (ie., hot list) then he would report to department of labor of the violations. Person went through the pain of downloading the LCA's for the particular company and attaching it to the e-mail.
Now; who knows whether person passed on the e-mail to depatment of labor, uscis.
more...
house Bruce Springsteen - Greatest
dpp
05-16 11:06 AM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
tattoo Bruce Springsteen - Greatest
Macaca
02-24 07:33 PM
Indian techie slams CNN Lou Dobbs (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-28a-04.asp)!, N. Sivakumar, October 28, 2004
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
more...
pictures 2010 Bruce Springsteen amp;
ThinkTwice
09-26 02:20 PM
The kind of delay in the GC process, the uncertainity involved and now added to this is the possibility of the Obama administration if elected making it difficult for EB GC applicants.
We have already anticipated this and had applied for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Program (HSMP). We will most likely move to UK soon.. as soon as the elections are over.. a matter of few weeks. Unfortunate that after staying in this country for 12 years, having graduated from one of the best schools and having worked and having been a part of this great nation this is where it may all end for us. Whats even worse is that our son who is a US citizen will grow up in some other nation.
Well.. time to move on.
We have already anticipated this and had applied for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Program (HSMP). We will most likely move to UK soon.. as soon as the elections are over.. a matter of few weeks. Unfortunate that after staying in this country for 12 years, having graduated from one of the best schools and having worked and having been a part of this great nation this is where it may all end for us. Whats even worse is that our son who is a US citizen will grow up in some other nation.
Well.. time to move on.
dresses ruce springsteen greatest
satishku_2000
05-16 05:50 PM
Very true. If it was a simple think to do -- tracking down all the illegals and deporting them in the course of an afternoon, I would be all for it! Fact is, it isn't that simple. That is why we have to cope with the situation at hand and make the best of it. The best of it, regarding the illegals, is to prevent prevent the problem (heavily increased borders and border patrol) and get an overview of the illegals already here.
Regarding the vast H-1B abuse by people NOT POSSESSING REAL, FULL-TIME JOBS, the solution is a much simpler one -- stop the abuse by stopping the 'consultants' on the bench.
Because its hard to deport you are not for deportation. Are you for local police getting powers to enforce the immigration laws too?
Now I see where you going , I think your views are much more in alignment with ALIPAC , NUMBERSUSA , PROGRAMMERS GUILD and Minute man project in my own home town ...
As far as i know none of the consultant friends i know are on "bench" for past 3 years and they make much more money and pay much more money in taxes than people who are in "permanent" jobs.
Regarding the vast H-1B abuse by people NOT POSSESSING REAL, FULL-TIME JOBS, the solution is a much simpler one -- stop the abuse by stopping the 'consultants' on the bench.
Because its hard to deport you are not for deportation. Are you for local police getting powers to enforce the immigration laws too?
Now I see where you going , I think your views are much more in alignment with ALIPAC , NUMBERSUSA , PROGRAMMERS GUILD and Minute man project in my own home town ...
As far as i know none of the consultant friends i know are on "bench" for past 3 years and they make much more money and pay much more money in taxes than people who are in "permanent" jobs.
more...
makeup Bruce Springsteen - Greatest
gc28262
03-24 03:03 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
girlfriend wallpaper Their latest album titled ruce springsteen greatest hits album
akred
06-24 12:04 AM
I am shocked to see the HOA cost in CA, Why is HOA so high there, Obviously CA does not get snow like East coast for 4-6 months, so snow mowing and salt sprinkling(which is expensive) is ruled out.
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
HOA dues depend on many factors. The community may have maintenance or upkeep expenses that are out of the ordinary. Or the board may be building up reserves for future expenses that may be as much as 25 years down the line. Sometimes the board is dysfunctional and will take the easy way out of charging more dues instead of optimizing expenses.
Before you buy into a HOA, get the minutes of the last year's board meetings and read through them to see if it is the kind of place you'd want to live in.
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
HOA dues depend on many factors. The community may have maintenance or upkeep expenses that are out of the ordinary. Or the board may be building up reserves for future expenses that may be as much as 25 years down the line. Sometimes the board is dysfunctional and will take the easy way out of charging more dues instead of optimizing expenses.
Before you buy into a HOA, get the minutes of the last year's board meetings and read through them to see if it is the kind of place you'd want to live in.
hairstyles girlfriend greatest hits album
gclabor07
08-05 11:48 AM
Folks,
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
nojoke
04-15 06:18 PM
kaiserose & NKR have made some mistakes by buying a costly home & wouldn't admit.
May God Bless you guys.
:D:D
May God Bless you guys.
:D:D
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário