dpp
05-16 12:43 PM
I am not Ronald Regan but I am compelled to say, " There you go again...."
Why are you consistently discussing about H-1B caps. Green card delays are not because of H-1B quota, I am sure you know this. H-1B caps have nothing to do who applied for the H-1s, whether those were consulting companies in US or a company in Japan. You are just saying it consistently in all your posts because you don�t like more people coming here after you are on path to green cards. In all your posts, you have this mid set where the door closes right behind you and more people should not be allowed on H-1. I am sure you qualify to be the member of IEEE-USA. Please Google search for their membership form. Just because the name of the organization is �Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers� doesn�t mean that every thing on their agenda is kosher.
This shows that you have no clue about the reality. You have looked at the IEEE website and formulated the opinion about the nice people at IEEE-USA, who are working overtime for you to get your green card. This is what you think, right? Well! My friend we live in a very strange world in which political organization (like IEEE) show stuff on their website just so that they don�t appear to be outright anti-immigrants.
Also, I do think that anybody who do not want to pick up their ass to find a job and rather chose to whine about someone else taking away the job is lazy and for sure undeserving. They are interested to put restrictions on H-1B because they want to eliminate their competition. Every community/group, big or small, have their opponents and enemies just because of the sheer nature of the competition for resource with other groups/communities. H-1B community now forms substantially large group of people. It is natural that orgs like IEEE-USA will be a natural opponent of H-1B community because there is a competition. Now, most members of IEEE-USA are older and middle aged folks, who are not able to compete with good quality engineers from other parts of the world. The folks on H-1 are young, dynamic and fast learners. IEEE-USA folks cannot compete with this group and so they are working to eliminate competition from H-1B folks by other means. Sometimes they call H-1Bs as indentured servants, sometimes promoting outsourcing, sometimes taking away their jobs and sometime depressing wages. They throw out all sorts of rationale to hurt H-1B community. And some idiots on this and other forums have not clue of the bigger picture and are hell bent on screwing the so called �body shoppers� as if it is ok to work at the client site to do the same job at the same amount if you are employees of KPMG or Accenture or Bearing Point. But it is not ok to do the same thing if you are an employee of TCS, INFY or SIFY etc. If this is not discrimination, then tell me what is????? I sincerely do want to understand your view and please consider me to be totally ignorant person who is here to learn from you. I sincerely mean it.
So you do think that anything associated with the word �IEEE� is gospel. Let me share with you my friend that IEEE and IEEE-USA are totally different organizations. Just like any other organization in the world, IEEE-USA is working to address the issues of their members only. IEEE-USA is working to fix the issues of their members who live in USA ONLY. It has no clue and no desire and no objective to look at any of your issues, no matter what they are. We all acknowledge that are problems with the H-1B program but the question is, Is Durbin-Grassley approach the real solution to the problem? Congress did not address anything associated with H-1B visa for last 6-7 years. If you write to lawmakers they only understand only thing about the word �H-1B� and that is increase in H-1B� that�s it. Now every system in the world needs tweaking from time to time and this has not happened with H-1B program for a very long time. Either way, throwing out people waiting for green cards for 6-7 years is not the solution, putting in restrictions to undermine the entire H-1B program (because they know they will not have enough votes to reduce the visa numbers or eliminate the program) is not the solution, �investigating� companies when they hire someone on H-1B as if hiring someone on H-1B is a crime is not the solution, singling out companies from one country because the guy driving IEEE-USA (Ron Hira) doesn�t want more people to come from India because he hates his heritage � is not the solution. Yes there are problems, but Durbin-Grassley bill is not the solution.
Who needs enemies if we have friends like you? I mean why do you want hard working people to unnecessary go through more problems before getting their green cards, as if the existing problems for us are not enough. You simple want to make the system difficult to test human endurance? You know what, we can do this, how about all the stringent conditions of Durbin-Grassley bill will apply ONLY on you and we are all sure that the �HIGH-SKILLED� that you are, you will pass all the �tests� with flying colors. For rest all the others, please consider us lowly skilled and please set a bar lower to the extent that is humanly achievable, we are not �highly-skilled� super-humans like yourself.
Yes, you have not yet clearly said that �I support banning all H-1Bs�, not in those words, not yet. But reading your posts, it is apparent that you are headed there, as soon as you get your green card. As I said earlier, form now on, just think that all the Durbin-Grassley conditions apply on you and live your life as per the standard set by Durbin-Grassley. For the rest of us, please have mercy on us.
Well said.
Why are you consistently discussing about H-1B caps. Green card delays are not because of H-1B quota, I am sure you know this. H-1B caps have nothing to do who applied for the H-1s, whether those were consulting companies in US or a company in Japan. You are just saying it consistently in all your posts because you don�t like more people coming here after you are on path to green cards. In all your posts, you have this mid set where the door closes right behind you and more people should not be allowed on H-1. I am sure you qualify to be the member of IEEE-USA. Please Google search for their membership form. Just because the name of the organization is �Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers� doesn�t mean that every thing on their agenda is kosher.
This shows that you have no clue about the reality. You have looked at the IEEE website and formulated the opinion about the nice people at IEEE-USA, who are working overtime for you to get your green card. This is what you think, right? Well! My friend we live in a very strange world in which political organization (like IEEE) show stuff on their website just so that they don�t appear to be outright anti-immigrants.
Also, I do think that anybody who do not want to pick up their ass to find a job and rather chose to whine about someone else taking away the job is lazy and for sure undeserving. They are interested to put restrictions on H-1B because they want to eliminate their competition. Every community/group, big or small, have their opponents and enemies just because of the sheer nature of the competition for resource with other groups/communities. H-1B community now forms substantially large group of people. It is natural that orgs like IEEE-USA will be a natural opponent of H-1B community because there is a competition. Now, most members of IEEE-USA are older and middle aged folks, who are not able to compete with good quality engineers from other parts of the world. The folks on H-1 are young, dynamic and fast learners. IEEE-USA folks cannot compete with this group and so they are working to eliminate competition from H-1B folks by other means. Sometimes they call H-1Bs as indentured servants, sometimes promoting outsourcing, sometimes taking away their jobs and sometime depressing wages. They throw out all sorts of rationale to hurt H-1B community. And some idiots on this and other forums have not clue of the bigger picture and are hell bent on screwing the so called �body shoppers� as if it is ok to work at the client site to do the same job at the same amount if you are employees of KPMG or Accenture or Bearing Point. But it is not ok to do the same thing if you are an employee of TCS, INFY or SIFY etc. If this is not discrimination, then tell me what is????? I sincerely do want to understand your view and please consider me to be totally ignorant person who is here to learn from you. I sincerely mean it.
So you do think that anything associated with the word �IEEE� is gospel. Let me share with you my friend that IEEE and IEEE-USA are totally different organizations. Just like any other organization in the world, IEEE-USA is working to address the issues of their members only. IEEE-USA is working to fix the issues of their members who live in USA ONLY. It has no clue and no desire and no objective to look at any of your issues, no matter what they are. We all acknowledge that are problems with the H-1B program but the question is, Is Durbin-Grassley approach the real solution to the problem? Congress did not address anything associated with H-1B visa for last 6-7 years. If you write to lawmakers they only understand only thing about the word �H-1B� and that is increase in H-1B� that�s it. Now every system in the world needs tweaking from time to time and this has not happened with H-1B program for a very long time. Either way, throwing out people waiting for green cards for 6-7 years is not the solution, putting in restrictions to undermine the entire H-1B program (because they know they will not have enough votes to reduce the visa numbers or eliminate the program) is not the solution, �investigating� companies when they hire someone on H-1B as if hiring someone on H-1B is a crime is not the solution, singling out companies from one country because the guy driving IEEE-USA (Ron Hira) doesn�t want more people to come from India because he hates his heritage � is not the solution. Yes there are problems, but Durbin-Grassley bill is not the solution.
Who needs enemies if we have friends like you? I mean why do you want hard working people to unnecessary go through more problems before getting their green cards, as if the existing problems for us are not enough. You simple want to make the system difficult to test human endurance? You know what, we can do this, how about all the stringent conditions of Durbin-Grassley bill will apply ONLY on you and we are all sure that the �HIGH-SKILLED� that you are, you will pass all the �tests� with flying colors. For rest all the others, please consider us lowly skilled and please set a bar lower to the extent that is humanly achievable, we are not �highly-skilled� super-humans like yourself.
Yes, you have not yet clearly said that �I support banning all H-1Bs�, not in those words, not yet. But reading your posts, it is apparent that you are headed there, as soon as you get your green card. As I said earlier, form now on, just think that all the Durbin-Grassley conditions apply on you and live your life as per the standard set by Durbin-Grassley. For the rest of us, please have mercy on us.
Well said.
wallpaper house lack londe hairstyles.
abhisam
07-26 04:01 PM
UN,
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
A quick question for you. So far, I havent found anything wrong with my I-485 application.
My wife is currently on an H4 visa and is a dependent applicant on our AOS application. She was working in our native country before coming to the US. When the lawyer filled her biographic information, she did not mention her employment in India. She just filled that section as N/A. We did not care at that moment because we thought USCIS might be more concerned about my employment history, as I am the primary applicant.
Now after reading all this, I'm a bit worried. And my question is exactly opposite of what most people are asking. Does not stating my wife's foreign employment mean fraud to USCIS? I really appreciate all help that you can extend in this regard.
Thanks,
abhisam
Macaca
05-18 05:23 PM
Although some of the dissidents were arrested for their involvement with social media, those outlets also have served as a balm, as families facing repression from the government try to contact the outside world. When human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong was arrested in February, his wife, Jin Bianling, opened a Twitter account to record her efforts to get information as to his whereabouts, counting the days of his detention online to a crowd of several thousand followers. (Jiang returned home two weeks ago, but is under surveillance, and the couple declined requests for press interviews to keep a low profile.)
Twitter isn't a medium known for its depth of emotion, but it was undeniably heart-rending when Jin described a conversation with her 8-year-old daughter one evening not long after Jiang's arrest. "Mommy," Jin recorded the child saying. "We shouldn't think about daddy much. You told me when I sneeze, it is a sign that someone is thinking about me. If we make daddy sneeze where he is now, he might be in even more pain."
What Next for Ai Weiwei? (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/18/what-next-for-ai-weiwei/) By Jason Miks | The Diplomat
Rebuilding a United Front on China Rights
The U.S. and European Union can push for human rights protections in China if they work together again. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576328831096040732.html)
By KELLEY CURRIE | Wall Street Journal
The rebel who suffers for art: Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/plumage/entry/the-rebel-who-suffers-for-art-ai-weiwei) By Uma Nair | Times of India
Inside China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/11/inside-china-819473755/) By Miles Yu | The Washington Times
Twitter isn't a medium known for its depth of emotion, but it was undeniably heart-rending when Jin described a conversation with her 8-year-old daughter one evening not long after Jiang's arrest. "Mommy," Jin recorded the child saying. "We shouldn't think about daddy much. You told me when I sneeze, it is a sign that someone is thinking about me. If we make daddy sneeze where he is now, he might be in even more pain."
What Next for Ai Weiwei? (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/18/what-next-for-ai-weiwei/) By Jason Miks | The Diplomat
Rebuilding a United Front on China Rights
The U.S. and European Union can push for human rights protections in China if they work together again. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576328831096040732.html)
By KELLEY CURRIE | Wall Street Journal
The rebel who suffers for art: Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/plumage/entry/the-rebel-who-suffers-for-art-ai-weiwei) By Uma Nair | Times of India
Inside China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/11/inside-china-819473755/) By Miles Yu | The Washington Times
2011 Shoulder Length Hairstyles
gomirage
06-07 01:05 PM
I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
The are plenty of no load mutual funds returning consistently above 5% annually return. If you want a zero risk investment you can get at least 3% (sometimes more than 5%) with ING direct, HSBC direct, and many more direct saving accounts. Last year HSBC offered 6% to compete with ING's 5%, while on the other side house prices were nose diving.
So my point is even at 3%, zero risk it's a good deal compared with gambling on a house that may never come back to original purchase price, in our life time.
Remember, this is not a one time event. This crisis has changed the world for ever. There will never ever be banks giving loans for more than 3 or 4 times income. So for prices to come back again, you are really banking on disposal income levels going up, which is not a safe bet, with the Indias and Chinas of the world proving very competitive offshore services.
This whole chaos was created in the first place by inflating the economy to find a solution to the dot com bust.
Again, we are not recommending against buying a house, which everyone should do at a point in our lives, but it's unsafe to bank on it, as a sound investment.
The are plenty of no load mutual funds returning consistently above 5% annually return. If you want a zero risk investment you can get at least 3% (sometimes more than 5%) with ING direct, HSBC direct, and many more direct saving accounts. Last year HSBC offered 6% to compete with ING's 5%, while on the other side house prices were nose diving.
So my point is even at 3%, zero risk it's a good deal compared with gambling on a house that may never come back to original purchase price, in our life time.
Remember, this is not a one time event. This crisis has changed the world for ever. There will never ever be banks giving loans for more than 3 or 4 times income. So for prices to come back again, you are really banking on disposal income levels going up, which is not a safe bet, with the Indias and Chinas of the world proving very competitive offshore services.
This whole chaos was created in the first place by inflating the economy to find a solution to the dot com bust.
Again, we are not recommending against buying a house, which everyone should do at a point in our lives, but it's unsafe to bank on it, as a sound investment.
more...
validIV
06-05 05:43 PM
Just an offtopic response, I used to trade options, which is far better than margin. Options give you 5 to 20 times leverage. And if you want more leverage, futures can give you 100x more. But my experience is the higher the leverage the more risk you are willing to take which is BAD. I have lost over 60k net (excluding fees) in options trading which I claim every year (max of 3k). I will admit I have had some amazing trades (SNPS, Dollar General and many others) giving me 10-12 times in returns, but I lost more than I made. I used to use IB and Tradeking.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
sledge_hammer
06-25 02:56 PM
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
more...
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.
2010 londe highlights short lack
gimme_GC2006
03-25 06:28 PM
Sometimes you listen to your heart and take a decision
Sometimes you listen to your brain and take a decision.
I believe this situation should warrant you to listen to your brain and hire a good attorney.
Dont go by your hunch (or heart). Again a friendly advice because there is just too much at stake.
Good luck no matter what you decide.
The more and more I visit this thread, I am feeling I should have went with Attorney.
So I will stay away until I further hear from AO :confused:
Thanks to all of you who wished me
Sometimes you listen to your brain and take a decision.
I believe this situation should warrant you to listen to your brain and hire a good attorney.
Dont go by your hunch (or heart). Again a friendly advice because there is just too much at stake.
Good luck no matter what you decide.
The more and more I visit this thread, I am feeling I should have went with Attorney.
So I will stay away until I further hear from AO :confused:
Thanks to all of you who wished me
more...
Macaca
02-25 05:40 PM
Is this book available? maybe we can get a bunch of copies and send to some editors, John Stewart/Stephen Colbert and some legislators.
If the author is approachable, maybe an interview with him and some TV personality could be tried.
Do a google search on Lou Dobbs H1B taxes. See how much crap comes out.
There are some immigration article blogs that refer to statements made by Lou Dobbs. I want to respond with accurate references.
If the author is approachable, maybe an interview with him and some TV personality could be tried.
Do a google search on Lou Dobbs H1B taxes. See how much crap comes out.
There are some immigration article blogs that refer to statements made by Lou Dobbs. I want to respond with accurate references.
hair Blonde Emo Hairstyles For
Ramba
08-05 03:35 PM
Wow ! So you are saying that no one qualifies for EB2 after 2004 !
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
more...
Macaca
05-27 06:05 PM
The Audacity of Chinese Frauds (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/business/27norris.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | The New York Times
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
hot peroxide londe and lack
bobzibub
01-07 05:54 PM
All communists (left) people cannot digest happenings in the new world. Communism & its extremists are a cancer in the last century, by God's grace is over. Now Islamic terrorists are the new avatar. Their fate will be same as communists. This guy get money to write article and book for them,
"extremists are a cancer"
"extremists are a cancer"
more...
house lack and londe
raysaikat
06-24 12:04 PM
[snip...]
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
tattoo lack and londe hairstyles
insbaby
03-24 09:07 AM
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
True.
Most of the answers in this thread point that you need to have a good life when you and your kids are young. Not for people who want to get money out of an investment.
Also a reply suggests what you can do in worst case.
Don't count how many days you are going to be in this country, but live every day for you and your family.
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
I just decided its my responsibility to give them a good living environment when they are young if I can. I dont' care about downpayment. If I was good enough to save the downpayment amount in 4 years, surely I can earn it back in 2 years somewhere in worst case scenario.
Credit score? Sorry, I already built the score and bought the home, now I have many other things to worry about in life.
True.
Most of the answers in this thread point that you need to have a good life when you and your kids are young. Not for people who want to get money out of an investment.
Also a reply suggests what you can do in worst case.
Don't count how many days you are going to be in this country, but live every day for you and your family.
I am sure you were not born in this country and brought up. Think about the enjoyment you had when you were young. Playing with 10 kids of your age everyday, running stairs up and down, cycling around the communities. Don't our kids deserve the same?
They should not end up as "GC" victims.
I just decided its my responsibility to give them a good living environment when they are young if I can. I dont' care about downpayment. If I was good enough to save the downpayment amount in 4 years, surely I can earn it back in 2 years somewhere in worst case scenario.
Credit score? Sorry, I already built the score and bought the home, now I have many other things to worry about in life.
more...
pictures londe and lack hair cuts
damialok
04-08 11:19 AM
People reading these posts are not cogs. They know that its one person's view. Whatever its worth.
My post should be read with a context. Its always within a Location. RE is always about location(Core SF Bay Area). Go ahead and plot the interest rate with home prices for the last 20 years and you will see the underlying evidence or argument. AND my analysis is localized to SF Bay Area. Its NOT for Loudon County or Miami Dade County or anywhere else. In my analysis of the demographics of this area, thats what I believe in.
So whats your recommendation on the subject of this thread? Watch more closely till you reach the bottom? Well you will never know that bottom. Yes, I might be off the bottom price by another 5-10% but with a lock in interest rate of around 5.5-6% thats a deal. Everyone is in a different phase of their life, ppl need to map out their 5-10 year outlook and make a decision. Thats easier said than done.
WS expects prime to hit lowest this Christmas. To be able to grab that lowest rate I need to start looking now and lock in my rate. Most Financial institutions offer ability to adjust rates once.
My biggest concern is Inflation/Stagflation and I will do everything I can to protect my assets against that. Thats my view and others should view that just like any other info they get on the web.
My post should be read with a context. Its always within a Location. RE is always about location(Core SF Bay Area). Go ahead and plot the interest rate with home prices for the last 20 years and you will see the underlying evidence or argument. AND my analysis is localized to SF Bay Area. Its NOT for Loudon County or Miami Dade County or anywhere else. In my analysis of the demographics of this area, thats what I believe in.
So whats your recommendation on the subject of this thread? Watch more closely till you reach the bottom? Well you will never know that bottom. Yes, I might be off the bottom price by another 5-10% but with a lock in interest rate of around 5.5-6% thats a deal. Everyone is in a different phase of their life, ppl need to map out their 5-10 year outlook and make a decision. Thats easier said than done.
WS expects prime to hit lowest this Christmas. To be able to grab that lowest rate I need to start looking now and lock in my rate. Most Financial institutions offer ability to adjust rates once.
My biggest concern is Inflation/Stagflation and I will do everything I can to protect my assets against that. Thats my view and others should view that just like any other info they get on the web.
dresses -londe-lack-hairstyle
kart2007
05-15 10:11 AM
Its sad but true that Indian companies liek Infosys and TCS are in fact abusing the VISA system. I know a lot of my Indian friends who have recently come from India and are working ata really paltry salary.
Moreover I think L1 is worse as there are no wage limits for L1 as opposed to H1 (I may be wrong).
Its sad that thing is happening, but its true.
Moreover I think L1 is worse as there are no wage limits for L1 as opposed to H1 (I may be wrong).
Its sad that thing is happening, but its true.
more...
makeup Celebrity hairstyles
sledge_hammer
12-17 03:13 PM
I support the continuation of this thread! I support Marphad's views!
girlfriend Emo hairstyles for girls with highlights Nov 26, 2010. Blonde Emo Hairstyle
Refugee_New
01-06 05:39 PM
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
hairstyles lack londe hairstyles.
siravi
09-30 05:41 PM
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
BMS
07-11 10:09 AM
Thanks Milind70,
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
chintu25
08-22 11:23 AM
:D
"Some good news for the economy. President went on a month-long vacation." �Jay Leno
"The federal government announced today that the recession ended back in November of 2001. It ended two years ago! Be sure to pass that on to all your unemployed friends. So you know what that means? The past twenty months of job layoffs, corporate bankruptcies and declining stocks, those were the good times. We should have been living it up." �Jay Leno
"Yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he would be willing to serve another term. Greenspan said, 'Where else would I get a job in this economy?'" �Conan O'Brien
"Democrats were quick to point out that President 's budget creates a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The White House quickly responded with 'Hey, look over there, it's Saddam Hussein.'" �Craig Kilborn
"President unveiled his new economic stimulus plan this week. It was reported that if the plan passes, the president himself would save $44,000 in taxes, Dick Cheney would save $327,000, and you could afford to take the whole family down to Burger King to pick up job applications." �Tina Fey, on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"
"President 's economic plan will create 2.5 million new jobs. The bad news, they are all for Iraqi soldiers." �Craig Kilborn
"According to a new study, bad economic times can actually be good for you because people tend to exercise more and eat better. This is not a recession, this is the President�s Health Care Plan." �Jay Leno
"The big story here tonight comes from Washington, D.C. where President announced his new economic plans. The centerpiece was a proposed repeal of the dividends tax on stocks, a boon that could be worth millions of dollars to average Americans. Well, average stock owning Americans. Technically, Americans who own a significant amount of shares in dividend dealing companies. Well, rich people, that's what I'm trying to say. They're going to do really well with this." �Jon Stewart
"Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal has resigned. He didn't want to resign, but there wasn't any money left in the treasury so he's got nothing to do." �Jay Leno
" Presidents advisers have long been worried that a lagging economy could hamper the president's re-election chances. They hope that the Cabinet shake-up will provide a needed jolt. If that doesn't work, North Korea has to go." �Jon Stewart
"Al Gore says President�s economic plan has zero chance of working. Now, this raises on important question: President has an economic plan?" �David Letterman
"President said today that it is our job to vote. That's what he called it, a job. And considering how the way economy is going, that may be the only job we have." �Jay Leno
"The same week the administration slashed pay raises for all federal workers, they announced they are going to provide bonuses to political appointees who do a good job. You know, that guy who cut everyone else's pay, he gets the bonus." �Jay Leno
"The Stock Market was down today. Two major businesses declared bankruptcy, consumer spending is at an all time low � in other words, president is back on the job." �Jay Leno
"President hosted something called the President's Economic Forum down in Waco, Texas today. Waco. Apparently Jonestown and Guyana were booked up. When I think of government policy that works, Waco is the place to go. He invited members of small business to the summit. He was going to invite big business, but they're all in jail." �Jay Leno
"President told the attendees (at his economic forum) that he wants to simplify the numbers on Wall Street so that people can understand what they are looking at. Simplify the numbers? We are already looking at single digits!" �Jay Leno
"In a speech yesterday in Milwaukee, President vowed to do whatever it takes to keep the economy strong. In fact he said that if he needs to, he will take vacation for another three months." �Jay Leno
"There's now speculation in Washington that President is now planning to increase the economic sanctions on Iraq. And let me tell you if they are half as tough as the economic sanctions he has imposed on this country, they are screwed." �Jay Leno
"President is leaving the White House for a vacation. He's taking a month off. Yeah, take a break, you deserve it. But aides say that while on vacation, will continue to make two or three speeches a week to make sure that the market keeps crashing." �Jay Leno
"Boy, another bad day on Wall Street. Things are getting ugly. Dow Jones is starting to look more like Paula Jones." �Jay Leno
"Do you have any idea how cheap stocks are now? Wall Street is now being called Wal-Mart Street." �Jay Leno
"The United States has developed a new weapon that destroys people but it leaves buildings standing. It's called the stock market." �Jay Leno
"The economy is in big trouble. Yesterday in a big speech, President said the economy was still getting over the hangover from the 90's. And then, the president admitted he was still getting over his hangover from the 80's." �Conan O'Brien
"Some good news for the economy. President went on a month-long vacation." �Jay Leno
"The federal government announced today that the recession ended back in November of 2001. It ended two years ago! Be sure to pass that on to all your unemployed friends. So you know what that means? The past twenty months of job layoffs, corporate bankruptcies and declining stocks, those were the good times. We should have been living it up." �Jay Leno
"Yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he would be willing to serve another term. Greenspan said, 'Where else would I get a job in this economy?'" �Conan O'Brien
"Democrats were quick to point out that President 's budget creates a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The White House quickly responded with 'Hey, look over there, it's Saddam Hussein.'" �Craig Kilborn
"President unveiled his new economic stimulus plan this week. It was reported that if the plan passes, the president himself would save $44,000 in taxes, Dick Cheney would save $327,000, and you could afford to take the whole family down to Burger King to pick up job applications." �Tina Fey, on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"
"President 's economic plan will create 2.5 million new jobs. The bad news, they are all for Iraqi soldiers." �Craig Kilborn
"According to a new study, bad economic times can actually be good for you because people tend to exercise more and eat better. This is not a recession, this is the President�s Health Care Plan." �Jay Leno
"The big story here tonight comes from Washington, D.C. where President announced his new economic plans. The centerpiece was a proposed repeal of the dividends tax on stocks, a boon that could be worth millions of dollars to average Americans. Well, average stock owning Americans. Technically, Americans who own a significant amount of shares in dividend dealing companies. Well, rich people, that's what I'm trying to say. They're going to do really well with this." �Jon Stewart
"Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal has resigned. He didn't want to resign, but there wasn't any money left in the treasury so he's got nothing to do." �Jay Leno
" Presidents advisers have long been worried that a lagging economy could hamper the president's re-election chances. They hope that the Cabinet shake-up will provide a needed jolt. If that doesn't work, North Korea has to go." �Jon Stewart
"Al Gore says President�s economic plan has zero chance of working. Now, this raises on important question: President has an economic plan?" �David Letterman
"President said today that it is our job to vote. That's what he called it, a job. And considering how the way economy is going, that may be the only job we have." �Jay Leno
"The same week the administration slashed pay raises for all federal workers, they announced they are going to provide bonuses to political appointees who do a good job. You know, that guy who cut everyone else's pay, he gets the bonus." �Jay Leno
"The Stock Market was down today. Two major businesses declared bankruptcy, consumer spending is at an all time low � in other words, president is back on the job." �Jay Leno
"President hosted something called the President's Economic Forum down in Waco, Texas today. Waco. Apparently Jonestown and Guyana were booked up. When I think of government policy that works, Waco is the place to go. He invited members of small business to the summit. He was going to invite big business, but they're all in jail." �Jay Leno
"President told the attendees (at his economic forum) that he wants to simplify the numbers on Wall Street so that people can understand what they are looking at. Simplify the numbers? We are already looking at single digits!" �Jay Leno
"In a speech yesterday in Milwaukee, President vowed to do whatever it takes to keep the economy strong. In fact he said that if he needs to, he will take vacation for another three months." �Jay Leno
"There's now speculation in Washington that President is now planning to increase the economic sanctions on Iraq. And let me tell you if they are half as tough as the economic sanctions he has imposed on this country, they are screwed." �Jay Leno
"President is leaving the White House for a vacation. He's taking a month off. Yeah, take a break, you deserve it. But aides say that while on vacation, will continue to make two or three speeches a week to make sure that the market keeps crashing." �Jay Leno
"Boy, another bad day on Wall Street. Things are getting ugly. Dow Jones is starting to look more like Paula Jones." �Jay Leno
"Do you have any idea how cheap stocks are now? Wall Street is now being called Wal-Mart Street." �Jay Leno
"The United States has developed a new weapon that destroys people but it leaves buildings standing. It's called the stock market." �Jay Leno
"The economy is in big trouble. Yesterday in a big speech, President said the economy was still getting over the hangover from the 90's. And then, the president admitted he was still getting over his hangover from the 80's." �Conan O'Brien
