vghc
01-07 01:49 PM
All Muslims are NOT terrorists, but 99.9% terrorists ARE muslims.
wallpaper salma hayek teresa 1989.
abcdgc
12-27 02:15 AM
I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
Don't worry, those nukes don't work. Pakistan first tried to test its devices in 1998. And after much "troubleshooting", the home grown devices did not explode in 1998. Chinese had to step in for face saving to explode 5 devices just for sake of exploding "nukes". The reality is, those arrow shaped hollow metal shells are risky because that metal is heavy. Other than the weight of the metal shell, there is no risk from Pakistani "nukes" :p
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
Don't worry, those nukes don't work. Pakistan first tried to test its devices in 1998. And after much "troubleshooting", the home grown devices did not explode in 1998. Chinese had to step in for face saving to explode 5 devices just for sake of exploding "nukes". The reality is, those arrow shaped hollow metal shells are risky because that metal is heavy. Other than the weight of the metal shell, there is no risk from Pakistani "nukes" :p
paskal
04-09 11:50 AM
Yes, pete, other people should have hurdles. So when they stumble on those hurdles, it would be your gain.
Its a zero sum game.
We cannot all unite and work on this issue. So let's divide ourselves. Let's split IV into 2 organization, one for EB3 dumbasses who are getting a free ride and didnt go thru the whole 9 yards , and other for smart kids like you and rimzhim.
Let me ask both of you. If you are that smart, how come you are not applying for EB1. I thought researchers would qualify for EB1. Why are you facing difficulty? Could it be that you are not really that good? Because the system does have an HOV lane for scientists to cruise to greencard. Its called EB1. And its current for most categories. What about that?
Why dont you join the fast lane of EB1 and leave the bachelor's degree losers behind who didnt thru the whole 9 yards?
given you find someone's opinion distatsteful, yours is no better. unneeded hostility and provocation help no one. please chill out. everytime something new comes up we are at each others throats. there are better ways to express yourself than personal attacks. i sympathise with your viewpoint but your attitude make me want to run far away.
Its a zero sum game.
We cannot all unite and work on this issue. So let's divide ourselves. Let's split IV into 2 organization, one for EB3 dumbasses who are getting a free ride and didnt go thru the whole 9 yards , and other for smart kids like you and rimzhim.
Let me ask both of you. If you are that smart, how come you are not applying for EB1. I thought researchers would qualify for EB1. Why are you facing difficulty? Could it be that you are not really that good? Because the system does have an HOV lane for scientists to cruise to greencard. Its called EB1. And its current for most categories. What about that?
Why dont you join the fast lane of EB1 and leave the bachelor's degree losers behind who didnt thru the whole 9 yards?
given you find someone's opinion distatsteful, yours is no better. unneeded hostility and provocation help no one. please chill out. everytime something new comes up we are at each others throats. there are better ways to express yourself than personal attacks. i sympathise with your viewpoint but your attitude make me want to run far away.
2011 hair images salma hayek grown
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.
more...
srikondoji
09-26 02:48 PM
I have spent 10 years in the hope that i will able to get a GC soon and settle down. I eagerly waited for a change in the EB category of the Immigration system. This change didn't happen in the Clinton administration nor in the Bush administration. I also don't see this happening in the next administration that is going to take over this country soon.
After spending 10 years in United States, i have started working on my plans to move back to India.
Every administration past or present has lumped skilled immigrants in the same category as immigrants who enter united states illegally.
Due to their sheer number, almost all initiatives to fix the immigration system has been to safeguard the borders, punish the employers who hire people without proper paper work etc. Skilled immigrants figure no where in their policy statements.
Despite working hard during the last years CIR bill, to make officials realize the distinction betweek illegal and skilled immigrants, we have to face the failure.
Even though i am hoping to see Obama succeed in this Presidential race and bring the change he promised to America, i am making my plans to move back to India as an alternative.
--sri
After spending 10 years in United States, i have started working on my plans to move back to India.
Every administration past or present has lumped skilled immigrants in the same category as immigrants who enter united states illegally.
Due to their sheer number, almost all initiatives to fix the immigration system has been to safeguard the borders, punish the employers who hire people without proper paper work etc. Skilled immigrants figure no where in their policy statements.
Despite working hard during the last years CIR bill, to make officials realize the distinction betweek illegal and skilled immigrants, we have to face the failure.
Even though i am hoping to see Obama succeed in this Presidential race and bring the change he promised to America, i am making my plans to move back to India as an alternative.
--sri
pappu
08-05 08:41 PM
Can someone note the
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
more...
myuname
04-07 07:55 PM
When there is no solution is to be found for the illegal immigration issue...then the obvious thing to mess with is the legal immigration! Isn't It? ;)
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
2010 house hair salma hayek teresa.
ssa
06-25 02:17 PM
Remember the biggest speculation we have had in recent history was in real estate from 2002 to 2007. That's the primary reason we are all in this mess. So if anyone is speculator it's the new homeowner who bought house between 2002 to 2007, definitely not the renter. I for one am very glad I sat out the whole crazy real estate hysteria during the time. I'm not underwater! Those who bought during the peak around 2005/2006 will have to wait a long time before they can even break even.
Your second point of buying 3-4 homes with 20% down each and building equity on rent is the classic strategy to head into multiple foreclosures at once. This was the exact thinking that got so many real estate speculators in deep whole. Show me a single major city that has good amount of jobs (Bay area/Boston/Seattle) and where the monthly rent covers the monthly mortgage payment+property tax+home insurance. If that were the case there would not have been all these foreclosures, they would just give their houses on rent!
Finally as for missing on the lowest interest rates, interest rates will generally move in somewhat opposite direction to house prices. That is because when the interest rate is high there will be less buyers which will drive the prices down. So barring lucky few you can only lock in either low interest rate or low house prices. Choice here is clear: you can always re-finance when the interest rates go down next time but you can never re-negotiate your house purchase price so you should always aim for getting a low price rather than low interest rate.
Owning a home is never a bad idea but paying unreasonable price for it is indeed a bad one. It's like asking if owning a Google stock is bad idea. It sounds like a legitimate question but in reality is an absurd one because it leaves out the most important detail. At what price? Price is everything!
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance. Same problem with now in 2009, you missed the low interest rates and who knows when they will come back down to the 4s again. Personally I hope they do come back, cuz I missed a chance to refi one of my properties. You are not only losing your rent money to a landlord, but you are also losing valuable time that you could've used to knock off your mortgage.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright– they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off– a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
Your second point of buying 3-4 homes with 20% down each and building equity on rent is the classic strategy to head into multiple foreclosures at once. This was the exact thinking that got so many real estate speculators in deep whole. Show me a single major city that has good amount of jobs (Bay area/Boston/Seattle) and where the monthly rent covers the monthly mortgage payment+property tax+home insurance. If that were the case there would not have been all these foreclosures, they would just give their houses on rent!
Finally as for missing on the lowest interest rates, interest rates will generally move in somewhat opposite direction to house prices. That is because when the interest rate is high there will be less buyers which will drive the prices down. So barring lucky few you can only lock in either low interest rate or low house prices. Choice here is clear: you can always re-finance when the interest rates go down next time but you can never re-negotiate your house purchase price so you should always aim for getting a low price rather than low interest rate.
Owning a home is never a bad idea but paying unreasonable price for it is indeed a bad one. It's like asking if owning a Google stock is bad idea. It sounds like a legitimate question but in reality is an absurd one because it leaves out the most important detail. At what price? Price is everything!
All you and the renters here are doing is speculating. Speculators, from my experience, always buy and sell at the wrong time because all they do is guess. Even if prices do go lower in 2011, speculators will speculate that it will go down further and continue to hold off then miss their chance. Same problem with now in 2009, you missed the low interest rates and who knows when they will come back down to the 4s again. Personally I hope they do come back, cuz I missed a chance to refi one of my properties. You are not only losing your rent money to a landlord, but you are also losing valuable time that you could've used to knock off your mortgage.
As for only putting 20% down and people saying that they want to buy their homes outright– they are idiots. You never pay full price or more than 50% for a home, even if you can afford it. Pay the downpayment, then invest the rest of that money elsewhere and build even more from that money. That is called leverage and thats what good smart investors do. They use the system, they leverage their money and NEVER pay full price. If you have $800,000 and want to buy an $800,000 3 family house, u dont use all ur money on it to pay it all in one shot. You buy 3 or 4 of them, paying 20% down then rent it out, use the rent money to pay the mortgage hold and sell after 20-30 years. Use the rest of the money and invest that in a portfolio or start a business. After 30 years all your properties will be paid off by renters like the people here. You can sell them, give them to your kids, whatever. But don't tell me you're not coming out ahead.
And for the people that are proud to have more than 1 car and paid it all off– a car is not an investment. Unless you buy an antique that you can sell for more than what you paid for, it is not comparable to owning a home. I have a car, it degraded in value the minute i drove it off the lot. Its great for vacations, going around, getting to work whatever. But I am not proud to own a degrading liability even when its been fully paid 5 years after I bought it with no chance of increasing its value.
I have no problems with renters like you or others in this forum. I make money from you. I don't care if you terminate your lease early because another renter will take your place. All renters do is throw away their money and will never get it back. I will use your rent money to pay my mortgage. But don't try to tell me that owning a home is a bad idea. Owning your own home is NEVER a bad idea and 68% of America agrees. You will ALWAYS need a place to live in.
more...
Macaca
12-27 06:39 PM
Onions vs. Corruption on the Outrage Scale (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/onions-vs-corruption-on-the-outrage-scale/) By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia | IndiaRealTime
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
hair salma hayek teresa pictures.
pthoko
07-11 10:48 AM
Your last action dictates the status you are in. As the last I-94 has H1 Status, you have 30 days to start working with new employer (or apply for CoS to stay on L1). It is usually a good idea to file H1 without Change of Status if you don't know the start date. In that case you have to re-enter US on that visa to get into that status.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
Yes H1B is NOT Stamped yet.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
Yes H1B is NOT Stamped yet.
more...
mbartosik
04-09 01:18 PM
jung.lee
I'll conspire with you and hijack the thread :D for a little while at least
The solar system on my house: http://tinyurl.com/2jzbfq
The tiles are by Open Energy Corp (www.openenergycorp.com)
You will find my house on their web site.
Price in round figures $10 per watt installed, it is a complex calc and depends on installer and what is included. There are a lot of rebates available and various tax credits (fed tax credit is only $2K). My rebate was $3.75 per watt, plus state tax credits.
Capacity 9KW.
I did a lot of work myself (mostly design - and it is a unique in US design) and worked with a professional installer (first install like this he had done). I also did a lot of the physical work on the roof too.
KWh (per year) depends on location, angle and direction of roof.
In Long Island multiply by about 800 for a steep west facing roof like mine so KWh = 9000*800. For more south facing and lower pitch multiply by 1100. In southern California I don't know what the multiplication factor would be, but you sure get a lot more sunshine, my guess would be more like x1800 for south facing. There are calculators where you can plumb in long/lat angle/direction and size.
Roof area about 1000 sq ft including the concrete. So about 900 sq ft of solar tiles.
Snow does not stick because the glass surface is too smooth, the tiles at the edge where the snow sticks are concrete.
Geothermal heat pumps, they work like an air conditioning unit but exchange heat with the ground (via pipes) rather than the air. This is much more efficient because ground temp is about constant 55F (in NY). They can run forward or reverse (heat or cool) too. They can be used with forced air or radiant floor heating (not baseboard).
If you are seriously interested in installing something like this my email is mark at immigrationvoice .org
On the immigration side: So I've gone out on a limb, and bought a house and installed a load of upgrades, but still waiting for I485 to be processed. I consider this to be a hugely patriotic thing to do -- (could the Iraq war have anything to do with energy supply), yet still no GC. I would love to ask Mr. Dobbs, what he has done to reduce his demand for foreign energy imports!! He probably uses 4000 gallons of oil a year for heating :-)
I'll conspire with you and hijack the thread :D for a little while at least
The solar system on my house: http://tinyurl.com/2jzbfq
The tiles are by Open Energy Corp (www.openenergycorp.com)
You will find my house on their web site.
Price in round figures $10 per watt installed, it is a complex calc and depends on installer and what is included. There are a lot of rebates available and various tax credits (fed tax credit is only $2K). My rebate was $3.75 per watt, plus state tax credits.
Capacity 9KW.
I did a lot of work myself (mostly design - and it is a unique in US design) and worked with a professional installer (first install like this he had done). I also did a lot of the physical work on the roof too.
KWh (per year) depends on location, angle and direction of roof.
In Long Island multiply by about 800 for a steep west facing roof like mine so KWh = 9000*800. For more south facing and lower pitch multiply by 1100. In southern California I don't know what the multiplication factor would be, but you sure get a lot more sunshine, my guess would be more like x1800 for south facing. There are calculators where you can plumb in long/lat angle/direction and size.
Roof area about 1000 sq ft including the concrete. So about 900 sq ft of solar tiles.
Snow does not stick because the glass surface is too smooth, the tiles at the edge where the snow sticks are concrete.
Geothermal heat pumps, they work like an air conditioning unit but exchange heat with the ground (via pipes) rather than the air. This is much more efficient because ground temp is about constant 55F (in NY). They can run forward or reverse (heat or cool) too. They can be used with forced air or radiant floor heating (not baseboard).
If you are seriously interested in installing something like this my email is mark at immigrationvoice .org
On the immigration side: So I've gone out on a limb, and bought a house and installed a load of upgrades, but still waiting for I485 to be processed. I consider this to be a hugely patriotic thing to do -- (could the Iraq war have anything to do with energy supply), yet still no GC. I would love to ask Mr. Dobbs, what he has done to reduce his demand for foreign energy imports!! He probably uses 4000 gallons of oil a year for heating :-)
hot hair salma hayek teresa. salma
masaternyc
01-11 01:50 PM
Who crucified jesus, they are still on for other religions too??? including hindis, muslims, sikhs etc. Read the history, 100,000 people demonstrating in spain means nothing???
Rally for GC was only few hundreds but people rallying in 100,000's in Spain atleast means something to me.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/11/europe/EU-Europe-Gaza.php
Rally for GC was only few hundreds but people rallying in 100,000's in Spain atleast means something to me.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/11/europe/EU-Europe-Gaza.php
more...
house TERESA RAFAEL ROJAS.
ameryki
03-23 08:59 PM
go for it mate. i bought a home in my 3rd year of H1 granted now I have Ead etc but immigration was never a factor when investing in a pad...hope this helps
tattoo images hot salma hayek teresa.
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:33 AM
No i am not comparing this to labor substitution. Also, i do not think what you said is true for ALL the people trying to port to EB2 by some means.
I intend to fight this legally and everyone else also has the same option of challenging my stand in court if they think i am wrong.
I am just here to gauge support (not monetary support) for the lawsuit, and to see if there are some angles which i am missing that may aid me.
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
I intend to fight this legally and everyone else also has the same option of challenging my stand in court if they think i am wrong.
I am just here to gauge support (not monetary support) for the lawsuit, and to see if there are some angles which i am missing that may aid me.
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
more...
pictures TERESA
Macaca
03-07 10:16 AM
Some paras from Fundraising Comes at Van Hollen Fast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601907.html)
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
dresses 2010 salma hayek teresa 1989.
crystal
07-07 10:18 PM
related article on murthy for the Inadvertent Unauthorized Employment
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_hombus.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nscuna.html
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_hombus.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nscuna.html
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
more...
makeup hair salma hayek teresa.
pmpforgc
06-09 08:22 AM
I had looked around Alpharetta, cumming, Suwanee, Duluth etc. for new as well as recent houses.
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
girlfriend salma hayek teresa 1989.
ssa
07-14 09:16 PM
I'm not from PERM. I got my labor approved the old way. In any case, this is far different from your own wording in the petition which implies *DOL* suggested that you apply in EB3. From you own post what happened was DOL rejected EB2 application and then the applicant re-applied in EB3. The very fact that PD could not be ported among the two applications shows that these two application were completely unrelated which again goes against your petition's stand there is no real difference between most of those stuck in EB3 backlog and EB2.
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
hairstyles hot dresses salma hayek teresa
Macaca
02-25 07:50 PM
Please post (with URL i.e. verifiable) Lou Dobbs lies. He is believed by some persons in other immigration forums. Thanks.
puddonhead
06-26 04:43 PM
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
Well - your approach smells of speculation, which is pretty dangerous!!
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
Well - your approach smells of speculation, which is pretty dangerous!!
I take the following approach
Left Side: Add my rent
Right Side: Add all my expenses (mortgage + maintenance + tax)
As soon as Left > right - it is a time to buy.
If you get to the nitti-gritties - it can get very complicated. e.g. you usually put 20% down. Plus the principal payment is technically not "expenditure" - it is "investment in your home equity". Owning means you lose flexibility. It is impossible to put numbers against all these.
However, my personal "estimate"/"Tipping point" (taking into account the loss of flexibility etc) is when I have positive cash flow from owning (i.e. rent > mortgage + tax + maintenance). Some very successful RE investors I know take the same approach and are very successful.
learning01
02-01 09:02 PM
Please give me a link to what you refer, and I will write to Lou-foul mouth. Also, I request you to wirte and update status.
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
