alisa
12-27 01:04 AM
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
wallpaper wallpaper borders and wall
jonty_11
07-13 05:51 PM
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initiatives like - call campaigns for House bills...etc. As I have said before IV is working for one and all...w/o caring for their categories. It was not IV that created this spillover policy...however IV is the one that will fight for you irrespective of whether you are EB1, 2 or 3. The key is to post a united front and some level of participation from every member...I was sad to see Pappu publish low numbers for contributions and phone calls....and only wish we would come together as a group rather than breaking apart.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
rameshvaid
07-14 05:23 PM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
2011 and wallpaper borders.
gomirage
06-07 01:13 AM
I felt the same way before. I said to myself I wouldn't buy a house until I get my GC. That was until a builder offered me a nice offer. I was renting a two bedroom apartment for $1200 as I have a family with 3 small kids.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
more...
Gravitation
03-25 03:59 PM
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
Property tax is paid to the town you live in. It pays for the public schools (primary and secondary education). If your town provides trash collection services etc, all that comes from property tax. It's usually different for residential and commercial and industrial properties. Typically, the better the schools in a town, the more is the property tax.
Percentage is determined by the town/city. For the purpose of this tax, town determines what is called "assessed value" of a property. This is done by the town-clerk by simply looking at the specifications of the property (lot size, number of bedrooms, living space, etc). This assessed value can sometimes vary wildly from the market-price. The assessed values are usually adjusted to match the town/city budget. it's not even intended to be anywhere near the market-price.
Just for an example, my house is worth $540,000 (market price), the tax is $6000/year.
Yes. property tax is fed deductible. I save ~$1000/month in fed taxes. Most of the mortgage loan payment is interest in the beginning and that's also tax deductible. My mortgage+property tax+insurance is about $2400. I used to pay $1500 in rent. For me, the only real financial implication of buying a house has been in the form of: New Furniture, increased heating bill and lawn-care. In lieu of that it has four times as much living space, a acre+plus flat yard for my son to play in. On the flip side, it's far out in the suburb. BTW, I put 25% down, otherwise my mortgage payment would have been higher.
Buying a house is not everybody's cup of tea. but it can work very well for some, depending on requirements, taste and future plans.
bfadlia
01-10 04:16 AM
And your source is RASHID KHALIDI!
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
i'm amazed u know khalidi (yes pro-palestinian, all US media is pro-Israel and no one finds anything wrong in that), and on the other hand think that resolution 181 had anything to do with egypt or jordan, the resolution partitioned palestine into a jewish state on 56% of the land and an arab state on 43% of the land and about 1% international area.. that is at a time where the palestinian population was 1,223,000 and the jewish population 417,000
Territory Arab and other population % Arab and other Jewish population % Jewish Total population
Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
Data from the Report of UNSCOP — 1947
In case you don't know israel took much more in 1948 than what this unjust resolution specified, then it took control of 100% in 1967 and never ceased to build settlements everywhere since then, the most generous israeli peace offer since oslo was is to establish the palestinian state on 13% of the land
i am tempted to respond to your "pot smoking" comment, but i have enough self respect not to go there
I rest my case. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East conflict knows how biased and pro-Palestinian this guy is.
Partition of Palestine was done as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
Stop smoking pot!
i'm amazed u know khalidi (yes pro-palestinian, all US media is pro-Israel and no one finds anything wrong in that), and on the other hand think that resolution 181 had anything to do with egypt or jordan, the resolution partitioned palestine into a jewish state on 56% of the land and an arab state on 43% of the land and about 1% international area.. that is at a time where the palestinian population was 1,223,000 and the jewish population 417,000
Territory Arab and other population % Arab and other Jewish population % Jewish Total population
Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
Data from the Report of UNSCOP — 1947
In case you don't know israel took much more in 1948 than what this unjust resolution specified, then it took control of 100% in 1967 and never ceased to build settlements everywhere since then, the most generous israeli peace offer since oslo was is to establish the palestinian state on 13% of the land
i am tempted to respond to your "pot smoking" comment, but i have enough self respect not to go there
more...
abracadabra102
12-27 08:35 PM
My comments in green.
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
This is not that easy. India has much larger air force and it is very likely that Pakistani air fields are destroyed before it can destroy all of India's air fields. Yes india will sustain some damage and Pakistan will suffer much greater damage as our air force is at least twice as large, and most of those shiny Pakistani F-16s can't fly for lack of spares.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
A failed Pakistan state is not in our interest either. A rogue state on our borders is much more dangerous than a stable country. An India victory in an Indo-Pak war is likely to weaken pakistani military control over that country and restore proper democracy in Pakistan
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
Yes wars are terrible, but look at it this way. If we do nothing, it emboldens the terrorists attacking us. They keep on striking major metros at random and this will create a very unstable environment for investment and we will loose much of the economic momentum we gained the last few years. We will bleed slowly if we just wait and watch. This is the cost of doing nothing and may turn out to be costlier than going to war (provided we win it and it is reasonable to assume India is most certain to win this war).
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
I totally agree with you on this.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
They are already working together. I, for one, do not believe all that crap Pakistan has been feeding the world/US that they are fighting Taliban/terrorists/etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to save their skin. This is basically Mush's plan and worked wonderfully so far.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
We should certainly improve intelligence apparatus and and start covert operations, but that alone may not be enough.
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
Nice discussion. At least takes the mind of that Feb bulletin :D
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
This is not that easy. India has much larger air force and it is very likely that Pakistani air fields are destroyed before it can destroy all of India's air fields. Yes india will sustain some damage and Pakistan will suffer much greater damage as our air force is at least twice as large, and most of those shiny Pakistani F-16s can't fly for lack of spares.
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
A failed Pakistan state is not in our interest either. A rogue state on our borders is much more dangerous than a stable country. An India victory in an Indo-Pak war is likely to weaken pakistani military control over that country and restore proper democracy in Pakistan
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
Yes wars are terrible, but look at it this way. If we do nothing, it emboldens the terrorists attacking us. They keep on striking major metros at random and this will create a very unstable environment for investment and we will loose much of the economic momentum we gained the last few years. We will bleed slowly if we just wait and watch. This is the cost of doing nothing and may turn out to be costlier than going to war (provided we win it and it is reasonable to assume India is most certain to win this war).
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
I totally agree with you on this.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
They are already working together. I, for one, do not believe all that crap Pakistan has been feeding the world/US that they are fighting Taliban/terrorists/etc. It is all smoke and mirrors to save their skin. This is basically Mush's plan and worked wonderfully so far.
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
We should certainly improve intelligence apparatus and and start covert operations, but that alone may not be enough.
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
Nice discussion. At least takes the mind of that Feb bulletin :D
2010 wallpaper borders
485Mbe4001
09-26 12:03 PM
"I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. ":)
i had to chime in, sorry but GWB is also a Harvard graduate. Only a Harvard Business graduate can get us in this turmoil ? :)
Obama might be good, i dont know, i have yet to see a some good bills from him or concrete actions, but people like him and in the US perception and media support is everything. I think he will win. If might not be good for us because of the following
a) Sen Durbin, is anti H1 and also anti GC (IMO)
b) Massive support from labor unions. Just reading some of the statements from the the unions who support him indicate that they will want their pound of flesh after the elections. Watch out for those changes.
c) If the democrats get a majority then there might be a chance (Reps dont have a chance of getting a majority), if the congress stays divided then the opinions are sharper and the same thing will happen again.
d) CIR had little if any EB benefits, it was mainly for the illegals...we were simply added due to actions from IV and the rest.
Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
i had to chime in, sorry but GWB is also a Harvard graduate. Only a Harvard Business graduate can get us in this turmoil ? :)
Obama might be good, i dont know, i have yet to see a some good bills from him or concrete actions, but people like him and in the US perception and media support is everything. I think he will win. If might not be good for us because of the following
a) Sen Durbin, is anti H1 and also anti GC (IMO)
b) Massive support from labor unions. Just reading some of the statements from the the unions who support him indicate that they will want their pound of flesh after the elections. Watch out for those changes.
c) If the democrats get a majority then there might be a chance (Reps dont have a chance of getting a majority), if the congress stays divided then the opinions are sharper and the same thing will happen again.
d) CIR had little if any EB benefits, it was mainly for the illegals...we were simply added due to actions from IV and the rest.
Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
more...
funny
09-30 04:10 PM
I think you are right - as soon as they see I140 revocation they are doing the easiest thing, that is to reject underlying I485. They can easily check the 180 days period; alternately they can actually issue NoticeOfIntenttoDeny (NOID) and give a chance to the candidate why I485 should not be rejected - this is also equally easy for them to do (just send a letter and give a 45 day or something similar time). I think they are simply rejecting so it reduces the total pending I485 cases. It might be possible for us to open MTR and resolve this but if working on EAD we will be in soup and also MTR's typically take longer to get resolved.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
hair Trustworth Wallpaper Borders
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
more...
ssa
07-13 10:59 PM
I agree. It would be 100 times easier to re-file under EB2 and port your PD individually than to get USCIS/DOL to change their rules (howsoever they choose to interpret it). Just see what % of our previous campaigns were successful in the past in spite of all our efforts...
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
hot hair floral wallpaper border
Munna Bhai
07-09 05:06 AM
We won`t get any letter from that comapany as my husband din`t exit in good terms.(Ofcourse if they won`t pay him for months).
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
I do believe in our case the reasons are more to do with the officer dealing the case than with actual technical issues.
In the NOID they said the reason mainly was( he changed from company A to B to C but when he reentered he entered on B instead of C .at that time was not very knowledgeable about all this stuff)he reentry was not legal and was willful misrepresentaton of facts.
Then our lawyer in our reply sent that as long as both visas are still valid it is legal.Then now they state ok his reentry is not wrong only the paystubs part is wrong and stating he never worked for that company chose to deny.
Your case is doable, get hold of some good attorney and tell them all the fact and as long as employer-employee relationship exist, you are on valid H1b. Hence since your Husband was without paystub but his I-94 was valid,it should not create much problem.
But do get intouch with old company.
more...
house Wine Wallpaper Border
bondgoli007
01-06 04:24 PM
Hamas position??? Huh.. Did Hamas members came and told you that Isreal shouldn't exist? Did we hear all these from those people? When did we last hear from Palestinians on thier position and what they think about Isreal? Its media and nothing but jewish media propagate this. What do they acheieve by doing these kind of propaganda??? They win people like you who would support killing on innocent civilians and school kids. PERIOD
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
tattoo Spivey Wallpaper Border
GCwaitforever
07-15 12:32 PM
Every forum has its set of jokers like loveh1b. They live in their own well and think it is the world. Thats how these generalizations come.
more...
pictures Kids Wallpaper Borders
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses egyptian wallpaper border.
axp817
03-25 03:31 PM
I know many people think about it but they don't have the kahunas to actually execute it. I am not aware of anyone who has tried it and was open about it with uscis.
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
Thank you, that is helpful information, although I was talking about a situation where you are self-employed while in AOS, and intend to stay self employed even after your 485 is approved. Self employment being your 'AC21 employer' essentially.
Any cases you might have come across?
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
Thank you, that is helpful information, although I was talking about a situation where you are self-employed while in AOS, and intend to stay self employed even after your 485 is approved. Self employment being your 'AC21 employer' essentially.
Any cases you might have come across?
more...
makeup Adhesive Wallpaper Border
WaitingYaar
04-05 09:05 AM
One thing is for sure that pending GC cannot take over the lifestyles of the individuals. One should continue doing thinking long term prosperity and standard of living. It is a good time to make this move if you have some cash to make 20% down, otherwise the rates, and type of loan programs are no longer attractive. The housing market is probably at the bottom, and hopefully with the new efforts to revive the housing market things may be improving soon. So considering interest rates are still low, housing values at 2004 level, it is a good combination. Just my 2 cents to the discussion!!
girlfriend Minnie Mouse wallpaper border
Macaca
12-28 07:23 PM
In India, a struggle for moderation as a young Muslim woman quietly battles extremism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122704519.html) By Emily Wax | Washington Post
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
hairstyles Day Red Wallpaper Border;
Macaca
01-15 08:35 PM
Not as clear this year (http://thehill.com/editorials/not-as-clear-this-year-2008-01-15.html) The Hill Editorial, 01/15/08
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
gcseeker2002
12-27 12:55 PM
Found this somewhere in the internet , this is meant for those Indian muslims who want to cause havoc in India.
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Maybe if we circulate this , Indian citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths against islamic radicals infesting the country.
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Maybe if we circulate this , Indian citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths against islamic radicals infesting the country.
mariner5555
03-28 04:45 PM
correct.
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
No comments:
Post a Comment