Macaca
06-20 02:11 PM
Learning From Microsoft's Error, Google Builds a Lobbying Engine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902058.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/) Washington Post Staff Writer, June 20, 2007
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
wallpaper hairstyles for long hair
Beemar
12-26 12:52 PM
Guys,
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
xyzgc
12-24 03:01 PM
I heard about Prithvi Raj killing Ghori and it's called Shbda Bhedi Bana Vidya.
They say that Prithvi raj knew Shabda Bhedi vidya.
Correct, that's what the legend says. However the point here is that the bad practice of insulting Prithviraj by making tourists and visitors step on his grave is still followed in Afghanistan!
Worst part, it were the Afghans who attacked Pakistan, although I'm sure Pakis will say it was Indians who attacked Afghanistan just as they said Hindu fundamentalists attacked Mumbai!:D
I'm sometimes amazed how much a religion can drive a person crazy! It will make people believe anything.
An interesting bit of history about Chauhans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauhan
In India, Chauhans are predominantly Hindu. In, Pakistan Chauhans are virtually all Muslim. The tribe and descendants of Prithvi Raj Chauhan were captured by Shahab ud din Ghori, while travelling through salt range on way to Afghanistan on night Gakhars of region attacked and killed the Ghori warrior and Chohans escaped to the hills and converted to Islam. The descendants of Chohan are found in Chakwal region and salt range.
Chauhan Rajputs also converted to Sikhism though most of them call themselve Jatts now but they have common heritage with Chauhan Rajputs.Most of them are from Yamuna Nagar, Ambala district from Haryana.
They say that Prithvi raj knew Shabda Bhedi vidya.
Correct, that's what the legend says. However the point here is that the bad practice of insulting Prithviraj by making tourists and visitors step on his grave is still followed in Afghanistan!
Worst part, it were the Afghans who attacked Pakistan, although I'm sure Pakis will say it was Indians who attacked Afghanistan just as they said Hindu fundamentalists attacked Mumbai!:D
I'm sometimes amazed how much a religion can drive a person crazy! It will make people believe anything.
An interesting bit of history about Chauhans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauhan
In India, Chauhans are predominantly Hindu. In, Pakistan Chauhans are virtually all Muslim. The tribe and descendants of Prithvi Raj Chauhan were captured by Shahab ud din Ghori, while travelling through salt range on way to Afghanistan on night Gakhars of region attacked and killed the Ghori warrior and Chohans escaped to the hills and converted to Islam. The descendants of Chohan are found in Chakwal region and salt range.
Chauhan Rajputs also converted to Sikhism though most of them call themselve Jatts now but they have common heritage with Chauhan Rajputs.Most of them are from Yamuna Nagar, Ambala district from Haryana.
2011 wedding hair styles for short
hiralal
06-23 10:17 PM
I don't believe the housing market slump will last more than 3 years!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
the slump may last 2 years atleast (i.e. prices falling) ...there maybe extended period of stagnant prices (2 - 3 more years)..every year that the prices don't rise is a loss ..when you take inflation into account (this is strictly from investment point of view).
the article talks only about support to housing ..it does not say that there will be huge opposing factor of baby boomers selling their homes (and going for rentals -- this explains why builders are building more rental units) or going to their grave.
Immigration is the unknown factor but quality of immigrants will matter too ...
as for buying a house in california ..my friend who has a townhome in bay area says that his advice to anyone who wants to come to california is ..DON'T COME HERE ..let alone buy a house ..since state is almost bankrupt ..taxes are rising, school size increasing etc etc..it makes more sense to rent, make money and get out of california
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echo boomers a lifeline for embattled U.S. housing | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L0AO20090622)
the slump may last 2 years atleast (i.e. prices falling) ...there maybe extended period of stagnant prices (2 - 3 more years)..every year that the prices don't rise is a loss ..when you take inflation into account (this is strictly from investment point of view).
the article talks only about support to housing ..it does not say that there will be huge opposing factor of baby boomers selling their homes (and going for rentals -- this explains why builders are building more rental units) or going to their grave.
Immigration is the unknown factor but quality of immigrants will matter too ...
as for buying a house in california ..my friend who has a townhome in bay area says that his advice to anyone who wants to come to california is ..DON'T COME HERE ..let alone buy a house ..since state is almost bankrupt ..taxes are rising, school size increasing etc etc..it makes more sense to rent, make money and get out of california
more...
mariner5555
04-17 03:16 PM
just in case people are wondering why the future of housing will continue to be bad ..here is the article.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2008/04/mortgage-resets-the-fun-has-just-begun/?mod=MWBlog
------
�When they start talking about mortgage RESETS,� emailed Paul Jaber, a portfolio manager at the Perpetual Value Fund, �can you correct them and tell them the problem is RECASTS? They surely don�t know the difference��
Paul continued:
See, if you took out an option pay ARM loan in 2005 and bought a few properties like the hotshot 24-year old Southern California real estate mogul � on average you would be able to make 40 months of BELOW interest rate mortgage payments (I use the word payment loosely).
After about 40 months your 2% b.s. payment would make the loan grow to about 115% of the original amount and then � WHAMMO � your loan would recast to a 27-year fully amortizing mortgage. Your payments would go from $1,000 a month to over $3,000 and you would be walking around wondering, like �What is happening?� A good analogy is the three-year no-payment, no-interest Circuit City TV loan. The catch is that in month 37 you owe ALL back interest � usually about double the original charge.
The guys talking about resets are trying to confuse the situation. The option arm loan was very popular through 1Q07 - so take 40 months from that date, plus 3 months for them to go 90 days late and then and only will you see foreclosures start to level off.
To further drive home the point, Paul adds:
The reason why CFC, WM, WB, DSL and FED are all imploding is because the 2003 - 2004 pay option arm loans are all recasting and then going 90 days late. But all you need to know is pay option arm loans have a teaser payment that will last until the loan goes 110%-125% of original value and then the loan RECASTS to a fully amortizing loan. That is how a payment skyrockets - its simple math. Whereas payments can�t realistically double or triple with a simple ARM reset, most are capped every year - again the math is pretty simple.
The resets do indeed peak in the middle of this year and then taper off. It�s also true that the Fed cuts mean that the reset leads to no increase in monthly payments for about 20% of borrowers and for less than $100/month for another 20%, based on an article I read in the WSJ a few days ago. But:
1) That means for 60% of homeowners, the reset will more more than $100/month � for some, a lot more.
2) Mortgages with teaser rates written from Q1 05 - Q2 07 are defaulting at catastrophically high rates before the reset � a whole lotta people can�t even pay the teaser rates!
3) Bulls are missing the lag effects. It takes an average of 15 months from the date of the first missed payment to sale of the house, so the fact that resets are tapering off by the end of this year means the wave of foreclosures and home auctions the resets trigger won�t hit until mid to late 2009 into 2010.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2008/04/mortgage-resets-the-fun-has-just-begun/?mod=MWBlog
------
�When they start talking about mortgage RESETS,� emailed Paul Jaber, a portfolio manager at the Perpetual Value Fund, �can you correct them and tell them the problem is RECASTS? They surely don�t know the difference��
Paul continued:
See, if you took out an option pay ARM loan in 2005 and bought a few properties like the hotshot 24-year old Southern California real estate mogul � on average you would be able to make 40 months of BELOW interest rate mortgage payments (I use the word payment loosely).
After about 40 months your 2% b.s. payment would make the loan grow to about 115% of the original amount and then � WHAMMO � your loan would recast to a 27-year fully amortizing mortgage. Your payments would go from $1,000 a month to over $3,000 and you would be walking around wondering, like �What is happening?� A good analogy is the three-year no-payment, no-interest Circuit City TV loan. The catch is that in month 37 you owe ALL back interest � usually about double the original charge.
The guys talking about resets are trying to confuse the situation. The option arm loan was very popular through 1Q07 - so take 40 months from that date, plus 3 months for them to go 90 days late and then and only will you see foreclosures start to level off.
To further drive home the point, Paul adds:
The reason why CFC, WM, WB, DSL and FED are all imploding is because the 2003 - 2004 pay option arm loans are all recasting and then going 90 days late. But all you need to know is pay option arm loans have a teaser payment that will last until the loan goes 110%-125% of original value and then the loan RECASTS to a fully amortizing loan. That is how a payment skyrockets - its simple math. Whereas payments can�t realistically double or triple with a simple ARM reset, most are capped every year - again the math is pretty simple.
The resets do indeed peak in the middle of this year and then taper off. It�s also true that the Fed cuts mean that the reset leads to no increase in monthly payments for about 20% of borrowers and for less than $100/month for another 20%, based on an article I read in the WSJ a few days ago. But:
1) That means for 60% of homeowners, the reset will more more than $100/month � for some, a lot more.
2) Mortgages with teaser rates written from Q1 05 - Q2 07 are defaulting at catastrophically high rates before the reset � a whole lotta people can�t even pay the teaser rates!
3) Bulls are missing the lag effects. It takes an average of 15 months from the date of the first missed payment to sale of the house, so the fact that resets are tapering off by the end of this year means the wave of foreclosures and home auctions the resets trigger won�t hit until mid to late 2009 into 2010.
riva2005
05-16 01:37 PM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
more...
iwantmygreen
04-14 04:49 PM
When I was a kid I lived in a very small house (flat) with my parents. Now I look back & realize that was the happiest time of my life. We didnt have much money. My parents gave me lot of time & love. For a kid what matters the most is the love he recives from his parents.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house". If owning a house means you will give your kid less time then its a bad idea to own a house. If you will give your kid the same amount of time you will in an apatrment then buying a house is alright. The idea of owning a house depends on your financial situation rather then being able to give your kid a better life in a house.
FYI: I own a 6 BR house.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house". If owning a house means you will give your kid less time then its a bad idea to own a house. If you will give your kid the same amount of time you will in an apatrment then buying a house is alright. The idea of owning a house depends on your financial situation rather then being able to give your kid a better life in a house.
FYI: I own a 6 BR house.
2010 Vintage Hairstyles
EB3IFiasco
08-05 10:41 PM
We'll have to just make sure we file an amicus on behalf of the USCIS if a case like this goes forward...
more...
alisa
01-03 10:59 PM
I try to avoid long posts, as well as obviously silly ones. I also pick and choose sometimes.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
I'm not with those proposing war on this thread neither am I with those advocating no war (I felt most of the reasons, not all, were ugly).I was not keen about sharing my thoughts on this topic or may be I was not sure so I didn't join this thread earlier although I've been watching this thread.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
I'm not with those proposing war on this thread neither am I with those advocating no war (I felt most of the reasons, not all, were ugly).I was not keen about sharing my thoughts on this topic or may be I was not sure so I didn't join this thread earlier although I've been watching this thread.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
hair Hairstyles for long hair is
gsc999
11-15 12:39 PM
Lets not give him more attention and importance than he deserves.
Democrat win in Nov. elections is slap in the face for all anti-immigrant entities including these talk/news shows like Lou Doubs. This is end for Lou.
It will be a day to remember when CIR finally passes both houses and he chockingly acknowledges that he had been supporting a comprehensive immigration plan all along ;)
Democrat win in Nov. elections is slap in the face for all anti-immigrant entities including these talk/news shows like Lou Doubs. This is end for Lou.
It will be a day to remember when CIR finally passes both houses and he chockingly acknowledges that he had been supporting a comprehensive immigration plan all along ;)
more...
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
hot Au revoir long hair!
GCwaitforever
07-17 06:22 AM
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
Members of Immigration voice are already on H-1B and would like to become permanent residents. Family members come on a dependent visa H4. H4 numbers are not counted in the overall H-1B numbers as H4 dependents can not work. H-1B numbers do not have any country specific quotas and already exclude spouses and dependent children.
Increase/decrease in H-1B numbers should be market-driven. This is my personal opinion.
The bigger concern is becoming a permanent resident. Green card numbers are limited. There are country specific quotas. Spouses and children are counted in the total numbers. Because there are more H-1B people from India and China (mostly graduates of US universities or come on H-1B directly), the queue is longer for these people and it takes even longer to get a VISA number for these folks.
Instant Green card is the Utopia. There are other practical solutions for this problem. I listed them in sequence of my personal preference. Others may choose differently.
1. USCIS processing efficiency: Many of the delays are due to USCIS and related agency processing capability. If we speed up this and increase effiiciencies, the wait would be lesser.
2. Allowing to file for Adjustment of status (I-485) without current priority date: This gives the employees a work permit and makes it easier for their spouses to pursue their own ambitions. After six months of filing for I-485, the employee is a free bird to choose different employer, for a similar job position.
3. Pre-adjudication of Greencards: This completes the ordeal of USCIS paper maze even when VISA numbers are not available. Applicants will get Green card when the VISA number is available and in the interim they will get the work permit.
4. Recapture unused VISA numbers: For the past ten years, USCIS never used up VISA numbers allocated per year because of processing inefficiencies. They should be recaptured and applied to the people waiting in queues longer.
5. Not counting spouses and dependents: When they come into this country, spouses and children are not counted in H-1B numbers. It does not seem logical to count them against VISA numbers while giving permanent residency. Spouses and children should be skipped from this count.
6. No country based quotas: Again the same argument. When H-1B holders come into this country, they are not discriminated by country of origin. While applying for permanent residency, they are in strict quotas. Why put this restriction for Employment-based immigration? It is not logical and there should not be any country specific quotas.
7. Exempting STEM: This is in the SKIL bill under consideration. Those with Ph. D, and Masters in Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics are allowed to adjust their status without waiting for VISA numbers.
8. Increasing VISA numbers: This is a quick fix solution. What guarantee does it give that we do not find ourselves in this immigration mess again after five/ten years?
If AFL-CIO supports these initiatives, it would be great for the cause of Immigration voice.:)
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
Members of Immigration voice are already on H-1B and would like to become permanent residents. Family members come on a dependent visa H4. H4 numbers are not counted in the overall H-1B numbers as H4 dependents can not work. H-1B numbers do not have any country specific quotas and already exclude spouses and dependent children.
Increase/decrease in H-1B numbers should be market-driven. This is my personal opinion.
The bigger concern is becoming a permanent resident. Green card numbers are limited. There are country specific quotas. Spouses and children are counted in the total numbers. Because there are more H-1B people from India and China (mostly graduates of US universities or come on H-1B directly), the queue is longer for these people and it takes even longer to get a VISA number for these folks.
Instant Green card is the Utopia. There are other practical solutions for this problem. I listed them in sequence of my personal preference. Others may choose differently.
1. USCIS processing efficiency: Many of the delays are due to USCIS and related agency processing capability. If we speed up this and increase effiiciencies, the wait would be lesser.
2. Allowing to file for Adjustment of status (I-485) without current priority date: This gives the employees a work permit and makes it easier for their spouses to pursue their own ambitions. After six months of filing for I-485, the employee is a free bird to choose different employer, for a similar job position.
3. Pre-adjudication of Greencards: This completes the ordeal of USCIS paper maze even when VISA numbers are not available. Applicants will get Green card when the VISA number is available and in the interim they will get the work permit.
4. Recapture unused VISA numbers: For the past ten years, USCIS never used up VISA numbers allocated per year because of processing inefficiencies. They should be recaptured and applied to the people waiting in queues longer.
5. Not counting spouses and dependents: When they come into this country, spouses and children are not counted in H-1B numbers. It does not seem logical to count them against VISA numbers while giving permanent residency. Spouses and children should be skipped from this count.
6. No country based quotas: Again the same argument. When H-1B holders come into this country, they are not discriminated by country of origin. While applying for permanent residency, they are in strict quotas. Why put this restriction for Employment-based immigration? It is not logical and there should not be any country specific quotas.
7. Exempting STEM: This is in the SKIL bill under consideration. Those with Ph. D, and Masters in Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics are allowed to adjust their status without waiting for VISA numbers.
8. Increasing VISA numbers: This is a quick fix solution. What guarantee does it give that we do not find ourselves in this immigration mess again after five/ten years?
If AFL-CIO supports these initiatives, it would be great for the cause of Immigration voice.:)
more...
house hairstyles for short hair,
pani_6
07-12 11:29 PM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
tattoo long curls, and vintage
nojoke
04-08 02:54 PM
Who said that if you buy a house today you will lose 100k this year and the in the next?. Where does it say so?. How did you come up with that figure?. Which fruit picker earning 20k bought a house worth 500k without a down payment?. Giving analogies and examples are fine, but try to make it more realistic. You are accusing somebody of misleading people, but look at what you are saying. Don’t try to scare people.
This might not be the right time to buy a house. After a couple of years when things start to look bright, then again you will come up with an excuse to not buy a house. Looks like you and alberto pinto might want to spend the rest of your lives in an apartment. That is fine too if that is what you guys want.
Keeping this thread alive has become Mr Pinto’s mission, it doesn’t matter if the person who opened this thread has already made a decision and moved on...
I am sorry, the housing will fall by 99K every year and not 100K. So you can predict how much the housing will fall and not us. If you can predict that housing will not fall down why shouldn't I. 100K is just a round figure. It can be 60K or 160K per year.
You asked for which fruit picker. Here is one---And before you accuse me of making up the story here is the link
http://hollisterfreelance.com/news/contentview.asp?c=213141. Google and you will find more such cases.
---------------------------
"Despite making only $14,000 a year, strawberry picker Alberto Ramirez managed to buy his own slice of the American Dream. But his Hollister home came with a hefty price tag - $720,000.
A year and a half later, Ramirez has defaulted on his loan, and he's hoping to sell the house before it's repossessed. And according to many housing advocates and civil rights groups, Ramirez is not alone. As mortgage foreclosures rise, many minorities are suffering.
Brown said the language barrier (Ramirez, a native Spanish speaker, is not fluent in English, and spoke to the Free Lance through a translator) can also play a big role.
"When you go into Washington Mutual ... you can't always get someone to speak your language," she said.
"The real estate boom covered a multitude of sins," Simmons said. "Once the market started depreciating, the rug was pulled back to show the rot underneath.""
-------------------------------
This might not be the right time to buy a house. After a couple of years when things start to look bright, then again you will come up with an excuse to not buy a house. Looks like you and alberto pinto might want to spend the rest of your lives in an apartment. That is fine too if that is what you guys want.
Keeping this thread alive has become Mr Pinto’s mission, it doesn’t matter if the person who opened this thread has already made a decision and moved on...
I am sorry, the housing will fall by 99K every year and not 100K. So you can predict how much the housing will fall and not us. If you can predict that housing will not fall down why shouldn't I. 100K is just a round figure. It can be 60K or 160K per year.
You asked for which fruit picker. Here is one---And before you accuse me of making up the story here is the link
http://hollisterfreelance.com/news/contentview.asp?c=213141. Google and you will find more such cases.
---------------------------
"Despite making only $14,000 a year, strawberry picker Alberto Ramirez managed to buy his own slice of the American Dream. But his Hollister home came with a hefty price tag - $720,000.
A year and a half later, Ramirez has defaulted on his loan, and he's hoping to sell the house before it's repossessed. And according to many housing advocates and civil rights groups, Ramirez is not alone. As mortgage foreclosures rise, many minorities are suffering.
Brown said the language barrier (Ramirez, a native Spanish speaker, is not fluent in English, and spoke to the Free Lance through a translator) can also play a big role.
"When you go into Washington Mutual ... you can't always get someone to speak your language," she said.
"The real estate boom covered a multitude of sins," Simmons said. "Once the market started depreciating, the rug was pulled back to show the rot underneath.""
-------------------------------
more...
pictures latest
Marphad
12-18 12:11 PM
I dont see anything wrong in what Auntlay asked for.. he has asked for investigation as to how Karkare was killed.
his initial verbage was not good.. but what he asked later was completely justified..
All the people in the van, in which Karkare was killed, died except one Hawaldar..
And all the top cops in the same van at the same time, somethings needs to be justified..
True. No doubt this needs investigation. But Antulay's intentions were horrible.
his initial verbage was not good.. but what he asked later was completely justified..
All the people in the van, in which Karkare was killed, died except one Hawaldar..
And all the top cops in the same van at the same time, somethings needs to be justified..
True. No doubt this needs investigation. But Antulay's intentions were horrible.
dresses vintage hairstyles for long
decipher
07-09 01:05 AM
If the past employer didn't pay salary, you can file a complaint with DOL regarding unpaid wages (I believe that there are some time limits for such complaints - please check).
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
more...
makeup If you love vintage hairstyles
rvr_jcop
03-26 07:21 PM
The attachment upload fails for me as well but goddamn UN, you are unbelievable.
1. Your knowledge of the specifics and technicalities and access to information is very impressive
2. And you go out of your way to share it with others
That being said, I skimmed through the document real quick and the part that caught my eye was the AAOs point on the applicant never having resided/lived in the same state as the employer, which you had also mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Wouldn't that be quite common in most consulting scenarios? What if the beneficiary/applicant has never lived in the same state as the petitioning employer but has lived in and worked for the employer (at client locations, offsite assignments) in nearby bordering states, from before the labor was filed and until long after the 485 was filed. Do you see the USCIS ever having issues with that?
Thanks for bringing this up. I hear so many explanations related to the work location.
The GC is always for future job and you never have to work at that location until you get the GC in hand. So while on H-1 if you are at a different location, but with the same employer, there shouldnt be any issue. But if you are not working for the GC filed employer and if you never have any intention to work for them and used AC-21 to different employer, then that becomes difficult to prove the 'intent to work' at the time of 140 filing.
The question I heard someone asking, what if the employer filed for Labor in a state where they do not have office but list the client location as the location that you work upon GC approval. I am not sure if that is a possibility. Probably UN could weigh in on this one.
1. Your knowledge of the specifics and technicalities and access to information is very impressive
2. And you go out of your way to share it with others
That being said, I skimmed through the document real quick and the part that caught my eye was the AAOs point on the applicant never having resided/lived in the same state as the employer, which you had also mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Wouldn't that be quite common in most consulting scenarios? What if the beneficiary/applicant has never lived in the same state as the petitioning employer but has lived in and worked for the employer (at client locations, offsite assignments) in nearby bordering states, from before the labor was filed and until long after the 485 was filed. Do you see the USCIS ever having issues with that?
Thanks for bringing this up. I hear so many explanations related to the work location.
The GC is always for future job and you never have to work at that location until you get the GC in hand. So while on H-1 if you are at a different location, but with the same employer, there shouldnt be any issue. But if you are not working for the GC filed employer and if you never have any intention to work for them and used AC-21 to different employer, then that becomes difficult to prove the 'intent to work' at the time of 140 filing.
The question I heard someone asking, what if the employer filed for Labor in a state where they do not have office but list the client location as the location that you work upon GC approval. I am not sure if that is a possibility. Probably UN could weigh in on this one.
girlfriend Bill Blass - hairstyle hair
nojoke
04-15 04:31 PM
We are mixing too many different aspects of home buying and creating confusion.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
That is not why we are debating. We are saying that the house values will fall down further, so save some money by buying low. Ofcourse if you were to sell immediately you would loose a lot. We are not advocating to look for profits when you sell your house.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
That is not why we are debating. We are saying that the house values will fall down further, so save some money by buying low. Ofcourse if you were to sell immediately you would loose a lot. We are not advocating to look for profits when you sell your house.
hairstyles woman with long blond hair
Marphad
01-07 04:05 PM
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
I tried to stay out of this as much as I could. Can't tolerate anymore. Why the hell Narendra Modi is considered as terrorist?
I am not saying every muslim is bad. As I mentioned earlier, few of my best friends are muslims. But why the hell each and every muslim remained silent when people in Sabarmati Express were burnt alive? Hypocrates!
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
I tried to stay out of this as much as I could. Can't tolerate anymore. Why the hell Narendra Modi is considered as terrorist?
I am not saying every muslim is bad. As I mentioned earlier, few of my best friends are muslims. But why the hell each and every muslim remained silent when people in Sabarmati Express were burnt alive? Hypocrates!
richshi
05-24 09:58 AM
Lou dobbs is pure anti-immigrants. he has never been an advocate of legal immigrants, he is against H-1B. Now he mentions legal immigrants only to defy the illegals. He is a bad person.
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:39 AM
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
