eb3_nepa
11-21 05:49 PM
So wait a minute!
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
wallpaper justin bieber and selena gomez
logiclife
02-21 11:31 AM
But he is definately worth laughing at. I bet this guy sends flowers to himself on Valentine's day. He is so much in awe of himself, its hilarious.
He wrote an entire column mostly about himself and now, suddenly there is a group of people called "Lou Dobbs Democrats"?????
He wrote an entire column mostly about himself and now, suddenly there is a group of people called "Lou Dobbs Democrats"?????
dealsnet
01-08 10:29 AM
I have use the word bastard after you used for Jews. You have said, your war will end till Jews are defeated. So get my reply. Don't cry!!!!! foul !!!
read your comments:
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)..
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
read your comments:
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)..
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
2011 justin bieber selena gomez
Marphad
01-08 03:35 PM
Refugee_new is a moron. He send me 5 profane message. He started the tread and he abusing the people responded in his tread. What he achived??
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respect all your posts. This time you seem like getting hyper ;)
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respect all your posts. This time you seem like getting hyper ;)
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:53 AM
A man went into the proctologist's office for his first exam.
The doctor told him to have a seat. In the examination room and that he would be with him in just a few minutes. When the man sat down and began observing the tools he noticed there were three items on a stand next to the exam table.
A tube of K-Y jelly; A rubber glove; and A beer.
When the doctor finally came in the man said, "Look Doc, I'm a little confused. This is my first exam. I know what the K-Y is for, and I know what the glove is for, but can you tell me what the BEER is for?"
At that the doctor became noticeably outraged and stormed over to the the door. The doc flung the door open and yelled to his nurse.......
Dam it Helen! I said a BUTT LIGHT
The doctor told him to have a seat. In the examination room and that he would be with him in just a few minutes. When the man sat down and began observing the tools he noticed there were three items on a stand next to the exam table.
A tube of K-Y jelly; A rubber glove; and A beer.
When the doctor finally came in the man said, "Look Doc, I'm a little confused. This is my first exam. I know what the K-Y is for, and I know what the glove is for, but can you tell me what the BEER is for?"
At that the doctor became noticeably outraged and stormed over to the the door. The doc flung the door open and yelled to his nurse.......
Dam it Helen! I said a BUTT LIGHT
Macaca
12-14 11:33 AM
The Delta House Congress (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010993) The politics of futile gestures, Dec 14, 2007
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
more...
snathan
01-06 05:15 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
2010 justin bieber and selena gomez
gk_2000
07-29 05:51 PM
100 thousand is not for a president to worry about. But 11-12 Million is a different story..
more...
pani_6
07-14 11:45 PM
Pappu,
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
Could you please outline what you would you say about helping EB-3 out when you meet with DOL/USCIS officials next time IV meets them...also I want you to write a full letter that address the issue faced by Eb-3 and post it for us to mail it out...I understand that letter is not perfect..but it brings the dire picture of EB-3-I..
From what I have seen in the Fourm posts nobody clearly knows how these Visa numbers are clearly allocated and everybody has thier own theory..and you know well legislation will not come this year and we do not know the composition of new congress next year..we may have a congress that even more anti-immigrant with the slowing economy.. and EB-3 I is badly hurting..
We cant convert to Eb-2 now its too late..LC PERM are getting Audited (Taking 8-9 months ) and no PP for I-140..even if we apply for Eb-2 now...by the time it comes ..we dont know whether Eb-3 would have moved to say 2003 making all the PERM and I-140($$) efforts go waste...
We want to know what is in store for EB-3...some folks write that only 5 families per state are going to get thier GC in EB-3.. at the current rate 2001 Eb-3 have to wait another 5 years to get thier numbers....
Could you in your next meeting with DOL/USCIS/DOS please bring up the issues with EB-3 now that EB-2 has some relief..and give us whether we need to convert to EB-2 or in the near future will the numbers in EB-3 move..
Frankly I have no enegery left ...
Pappu..you are doing a great job..I commend your efforts..please show some direction for EB-3 ..some news from DOS/USCIS would be helpful...
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
hair Yes, Justin Bieber and Selena
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
more...
vghc
01-07 03:36 PM
Thats why these killings happen. Now you agree. Thats why you guys are killing school kids also. Because you see them as potential terrrorist. This is the truth.
Dunno man.....them people are raising their kids to be terrorists....i am worried what they would do to innocent people when they grow up. Go search on YouTube or LiveLeak for Palestine Children and its disturbing what these school kids are learning to become. I don't know of any culture that raises their young ones to hate like that.
Dunno man.....them people are raising their kids to be terrorists....i am worried what they would do to innocent people when they grow up. Go search on YouTube or LiveLeak for Palestine Children and its disturbing what these school kids are learning to become. I don't know of any culture that raises their young ones to hate like that.
hot Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
mallu
01-28 02:46 PM
Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
That is surely amnesia. What to say, one of my desi coworker who who got his citizenship recently has started "Why we need more people" . When asked about his case, "mine was different, because of y2k etc there were great demand around 1999-2000".
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
That is surely amnesia. What to say, one of my desi coworker who who got his citizenship recently has started "Why we need more people" . When asked about his case, "mine was different, because of y2k etc there were great demand around 1999-2000".
more...
house Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
brshankar
08-05 10:27 PM
Rolling Flood,
There are only 3000 visas allocated to EB2 India category every year. If they didn't allow spill overs from EB1 to EB2 then the PD for EB2 India will be UNAVAILABLE just like EB3 India and EB3 India guys would not want to port to EB2 because it does not help them.
The main reason EB2 India is moving fast is because of the spill overs from other EB categories. OK I agree that EB2 India should get spillover visas from EB2 ROW but why should they get EB1 spillover visas? Is EB2 = EB1? Why can't they allocate the EB1 visas equally between EB2 and EB3. See it is the law that allows for visas to spillover from EB1 to EB2 and then to EB3. Same way it is the law that allows for EB3 to port to EB2.
Please dont make this a big deal. Nothing is perfect, we can find fault in everything.
To my fellow IV members,
Lets not fight. We need each other to win this battle. Lets win it together.
Thanks
There are only 3000 visas allocated to EB2 India category every year. If they didn't allow spill overs from EB1 to EB2 then the PD for EB2 India will be UNAVAILABLE just like EB3 India and EB3 India guys would not want to port to EB2 because it does not help them.
The main reason EB2 India is moving fast is because of the spill overs from other EB categories. OK I agree that EB2 India should get spillover visas from EB2 ROW but why should they get EB1 spillover visas? Is EB2 = EB1? Why can't they allocate the EB1 visas equally between EB2 and EB3. See it is the law that allows for visas to spillover from EB1 to EB2 and then to EB3. Same way it is the law that allows for EB3 to port to EB2.
Please dont make this a big deal. Nothing is perfect, we can find fault in everything.
To my fellow IV members,
Lets not fight. We need each other to win this battle. Lets win it together.
Thanks
tattoo Justin Bieber must have been
RNGC
06-23 04:37 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
more...
pictures Undermay , selenagomez Jan
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
dresses Pictures: Justin Bieber Goes
unseenguy
06-24 08:31 PM
I completely agree with you.. I seriously dont understand what pride/ownership people feel by making 5% or best case 20% downpayment, Where the bank owns most of the house. It only truly yours when you have fully paid for it. To cite comparisons to our parents is plain foolish. Most of our parents bought their first homes by outright paying for it and having the home in their own name and not any BANK. Dont get me wrong, Not that i am pro renting and against home buying. I hope to have a bank financed home like everybody else in the near future. But i seriously would not feel any pride of ownership without actually owning it in the real sense. I fully own both my cars and feel proud about them :).
Perfect. I agree. Infact I forced my landlord to have a clause that I could break the lease if I lost my job for 1 month additional rent, :)
Also the apartment companies send your way lot of extras such as: garbage, water, in some cases parking, storage etc. I only pay electricity and everything else is free for me :)
Perfect. I agree. Infact I forced my landlord to have a clause that I could break the lease if I lost my job for 1 month additional rent, :)
Also the apartment companies send your way lot of extras such as: garbage, water, in some cases parking, storage etc. I only pay electricity and everything else is free for me :)
more...
makeup Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
chanduv23
03-24 10:55 AM
A lot of the list and questions that you are being asked is what department of labor asks when they are investigating possible h-1b violations. What they have asked you is usually in those types of investigations.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
girlfriend justin bieber and selena gomez
rockstart
07-14 08:28 AM
In the letter Phani mentions DOL asked companies to file EB3 instead of EB2 because of slow economy in 2001-2002. Is there any official communication regarding this? According to my understanding of the process and rules. It is job requirement that drives the labor category (EB2 or EB3). Most jobs require bachelors degree with some experience and hence are classified as EB3. There are other jobs that need more skills ( according to employer and endorsed by DOL) which also demand little more salary. These get qualified as EB2 and then there are speacialist jobs that require very highly qualified people which are EB1. Its employers responsiblity to convince the DOL in labor and I140 stage that he needs a guy for a specialist job (EB2) and that he can afford to pay the candidate. Whether economy is slow or Fast if as an employer I have the money to pay the candidate and I have a need for his skills I can file and definately get my EB2 approved. I think what happened in 2001 was since economy was slow and companies were not doing great financially the lawyers must have cautioned the employers against filing EB2 since DOL could audit it and if comapnies are not doing good they might not be able to justify the Eb2 salaries. That is my guess please correct me if I am wrong. DOL will never advice companies to file EB2 or EB3 their job is to validate the job requirement A2P and Candidates qualifications.
hairstyles Pictures of Justin Bieber and
vdixit
03-28 01:35 PM
mariner5555
Nope I am not a realtor. Just another EB2 person stuck in the never ending battle for GC. I can see your points, but financial hardships dont exactly change with GC. In this economy a GC is no guarantee for a job part-time or full-time.
The house I am talking about was in a metropolitian area so probably thats why we didnt have too much trouble selling it. Selling it was very important since we were moving out of state for jobs. So perhaps I didnt ask for too high a price-no loss however, just not the 150k profits people had seen before the crash.
I totally agree that house is a long term commitment and that location, the timing and the place you find yourself in your life are the most imp things. But I still refuse to believe that not having a GC should stop someone from simple pleasures of living such as owing a house to raise your family in.
Just my 2 cents.
Nope I am not a realtor. Just another EB2 person stuck in the never ending battle for GC. I can see your points, but financial hardships dont exactly change with GC. In this economy a GC is no guarantee for a job part-time or full-time.
The house I am talking about was in a metropolitian area so probably thats why we didnt have too much trouble selling it. Selling it was very important since we were moving out of state for jobs. So perhaps I didnt ask for too high a price-no loss however, just not the 150k profits people had seen before the crash.
I totally agree that house is a long term commitment and that location, the timing and the place you find yourself in your life are the most imp things. But I still refuse to believe that not having a GC should stop someone from simple pleasures of living such as owing a house to raise your family in.
Just my 2 cents.
EndlessWait
07-14 09:24 PM
for those who were eligible to file in EB2, its even more painful...
There are just too many cases in the Eb3 pipeline, unless USCIS/govt. does something about it..
There are just too many cases in the Eb3 pipeline, unless USCIS/govt. does something about it..
dealsnet
01-08 01:15 PM
Read their explanation, Rayaan, regugee_new are upset about the Mumbai tread. It means what??. Need a teacher or preacher to interpret it??
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
No comments:
Post a Comment