axp817
03-26 03:38 PM
If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
ramaonline
02-02 05:21 PM
Both L1 and H1 visa holders pay taxes just like any othe US Citizen
NKR
04-14 02:30 PM
wow you come back to the same argument again ..and you tell others. maybe you should ask your child ..would you prefer that I spend more time with you or is it o.k if I see you only on weekends.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Glad to know that you remember me. I don�t understand your logic, do you mean to say that I go to my house only on weekends, or do you mean to say that people who live in apartments spend the weekdays with family and go to work only on weekends?. What is your point dude?.
you are saying the others are not understanding your point ..but at the same time you are not understanding the other side of argument.
basically you are equating a bigger house means better childhood ..which is plain wrong. maybe your case or for few lucky people that maybe the case ..but I suspect for 99 percent of people ..maintaining and buying homes means they have to slog harder and that means less time for kids !!
Glad to know that you remember me. I don�t understand your logic, do you mean to say that I go to my house only on weekends, or do you mean to say that people who live in apartments spend the weekdays with family and go to work only on weekends?. What is your point dude?.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
number30
03-24 11:37 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
What the consulting companies( Including Mine) are working like placement cell holding the stock of consultants. This is being questioned by the USCIS. They are understanding the mode of the operations. These stock does not have any usage unless they get some order. This is question was getting raised in H1B RFEs since last two-three years. With H1B you can escape with contracts between companies. But the concern with green card is will they accept such kind of agreements as proof of an permanent job? It will come to nature of the business of the company.
(sorry for the Language )
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
What the consulting companies( Including Mine) are working like placement cell holding the stock of consultants. This is being questioned by the USCIS. They are understanding the mode of the operations. These stock does not have any usage unless they get some order. This is question was getting raised in H1B RFEs since last two-three years. With H1B you can escape with contracts between companies. But the concern with green card is will they accept such kind of agreements as proof of an permanent job? It will come to nature of the business of the company.
(sorry for the Language )
more...
sayantan76
12-29 11:20 PM
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
NKR
07-14 09:48 AM
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
more...
nojoke
04-14 04:33 PM
Comparing buying playstation3 and chocolates with buying a house is nojoke. The argument of buying playstation3 and chocolates is no argument.
You ddin't get my point. 7 year old kid gives more importance to these than a house. I am not saying playstation3 is equal to housing.:(
If you had said your child needs personal space, then it would be different. In this case you are talking about older kids. Most of us have kids younger than 5 years old.
You ddin't get my point. 7 year old kid gives more importance to these than a house. I am not saying playstation3 is equal to housing.:(
If you had said your child needs personal space, then it would be different. In this case you are talking about older kids. Most of us have kids younger than 5 years old.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
xyzgc
12-25 03:41 PM
Why worry so much about some random terrorist acts in India when billions of people are dying of disease and hunger all over the globe?
Like somebody once said - let's worry about the enlightened self interests tomorrow, let's be concerned with the self-interests today. Before we even think about becoming Charitable Mr. Gates, let's first come close to being Mr. Gates first!
You will find your ties to India very difficult to break. You and I are part of the international business community and India plays a significant role in this global economy! Terrorism, anywhere in this economic zone not just India, will impact either you or your employer directly.
India has a dark chapter in history of repeated Islamic infiltrations, invasions, barbarism and terrorism - all of which goes back to 11th and 12th centuries and more significantly of caving in to them. We see only history repeating itself and all of us must be aware of this fact. Pakistani terrorists attack India with impunity, while the rest of the world dismisses it as an outcome of Kashmir conflict, Hindu-Muslim religious divide and so on. Not realizing that there are deep economic ramifications.
I'll do my best to educate/remind everyone of this fact, even if it means being branded on immigration forums as a hate-monger.
I believe that the world opinion has long reaching influence - it may be a slow-acting antidote but its curative effects will be long lasting.
Like somebody once said - let's worry about the enlightened self interests tomorrow, let's be concerned with the self-interests today. Before we even think about becoming Charitable Mr. Gates, let's first come close to being Mr. Gates first!
You will find your ties to India very difficult to break. You and I are part of the international business community and India plays a significant role in this global economy! Terrorism, anywhere in this economic zone not just India, will impact either you or your employer directly.
India has a dark chapter in history of repeated Islamic infiltrations, invasions, barbarism and terrorism - all of which goes back to 11th and 12th centuries and more significantly of caving in to them. We see only history repeating itself and all of us must be aware of this fact. Pakistani terrorists attack India with impunity, while the rest of the world dismisses it as an outcome of Kashmir conflict, Hindu-Muslim religious divide and so on. Not realizing that there are deep economic ramifications.
I'll do my best to educate/remind everyone of this fact, even if it means being branded on immigration forums as a hate-monger.
I believe that the world opinion has long reaching influence - it may be a slow-acting antidote but its curative effects will be long lasting.
more...
suavesandeep
06-26 03:05 PM
Would you share what calculator are you using.
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
more...
IL_Guy
06-08 11:42 AM
[QUOTE. Life would be boring playing safe.[/QUOTE]
Thats me, man! I tried both options "playing safe" and "daring out". I liked the later one better. I'm a H1-B, I owned a home for last five years and I'm absolutely happy.
My thoughts are that you should take risks in life (Home, Stocks...etc) until you are 40, you may win some and lose some. If you lose, you still have time to recover...either in US or your home country, at least you tried.
Regards.
Thats me, man! I tried both options "playing safe" and "daring out". I liked the later one better. I'm a H1-B, I owned a home for last five years and I'm absolutely happy.
My thoughts are that you should take risks in life (Home, Stocks...etc) until you are 40, you may win some and lose some. If you lose, you still have time to recover...either in US or your home country, at least you tried.
Regards.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
Macaca
12-30 04:19 PM
But today, as the year ends, the netroots activists who adored Reid at the start of the new Congress have begun turning on him, musing out loud about encouraging senators to oust him as leader. They complained that Reid's Senate caved - allowing continued tax breaks for oil companies, approving a new attorney general who wouldn't call waterboarding torture, breaking the pay-as-you go promise by approving a tax break without a tax hike on the rich.
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
validIV
06-26 10:20 AM
Renting is not throwing money away..why ? for one - you get a place to stay, flexibility, maintenance / property tax paid by property owner, you can rent closer to your work and move around as per needs etc etc.. housing has its own benefits (but renting has its own too .."it is not as easy as saying renting is throwing money away" ..I have been asked to write about this in detail in the IV wiki ..will post a link here later
ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
akgind
08-05 04:01 PM
"...We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more."
Where is the evidence? Interfiling has been legal for several years and yet EB2 PD is at 2006 whereas EB3 is still hovering around 2001. The fact is that interfiling benefits only a small fraction of EB3 filers.
Rollong_Flood, you are misleading the entire IV community.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more."
Where is the evidence? Interfiling has been legal for several years and yet EB2 PD is at 2006 whereas EB3 is still hovering around 2001. The fact is that interfiling benefits only a small fraction of EB3 filers.
Rollong_Flood, you are misleading the entire IV community.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
lost_in_migration
04-07 08:22 PM
The point missed here is most of us have our GC applications pending at a stage in which we cannot change employers... If we had our GCs we didn't had to worry about this bill ..and a lot of things :(
I am not sure why we are worrying about this bill. This makes restrictions on Consulting companies, so what Clients won't be able to find people, so they do hire people as full time instead of temporary consulting position. That is good for us we can find more full time positions from client it self. I even heard that this bill makes sure H1B are paid by market rates instead of DOL wages which are often very less than market value. Good thing for us the staring salaries would be at higher rate than present rates. This bill is bad for consulting companies but good for us. Am i missing any thing here??
I am not sure why we are worrying about this bill. This makes restrictions on Consulting companies, so what Clients won't be able to find people, so they do hire people as full time instead of temporary consulting position. That is good for us we can find more full time positions from client it self. I even heard that this bill makes sure H1B are paid by market rates instead of DOL wages which are often very less than market value. Good thing for us the staring salaries would be at higher rate than present rates. This bill is bad for consulting companies but good for us. Am i missing any thing here??
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
qplearn
11-14 10:09 PM
As far as I know, almost every telecast of his has some representative of FAIR, numbersUSA or some other crony organisation like the programmers guild as his guest. And he presents their "research" as if they are winners of the nobel prize in economics.
And who told you SKIL is killed and numbersUSA killed it ? In fact they are quaking in their boots at the thought of congress passing some large scale immigration relief measure like SKIL during the lame duck session. Take a look at their site for the latest "action item". Sad part is many of their friends in congress have either lost their job or are licking their wounds.
The SKIL was actually killed last time in the house, and Lou was/is a big friend of theirs. Lou has given them more publicity than anyone would ever have, and they used it to contact house members.
And I did not mean that SKIL is killed for good obviously. If they've lost most friends our SKIL bill should sail in the lame duck session, and I don't have any problems with that :) Let's see what happens ....
And who told you SKIL is killed and numbersUSA killed it ? In fact they are quaking in their boots at the thought of congress passing some large scale immigration relief measure like SKIL during the lame duck session. Take a look at their site for the latest "action item". Sad part is many of their friends in congress have either lost their job or are licking their wounds.
The SKIL was actually killed last time in the house, and Lou was/is a big friend of theirs. Lou has given them more publicity than anyone would ever have, and they used it to contact house members.
And I did not mean that SKIL is killed for good obviously. If they've lost most friends our SKIL bill should sail in the lame duck session, and I don't have any problems with that :) Let's see what happens ....
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
hpandey
06-26 02:47 PM
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
2. Property taxes - these we write off from our income which again becomes pointless more or less
3. Maintainence - Now that is a personal thing - I lived in rented apartments for many years until last year end - The property admins don't replace things on demand - so you have to live with the same old appliances , carpets etc etc until they really die off since no one is going to replace them on demand . Things break so many times as they reach the end of their life and you call the property office each time and so on.
I would rather that I maintain my own things and have best of the market stuff rather than not.
Some people might say there are rented places where they have top of the line stuff but remember that the rent goes higher too. So that negates that point.
And coming to what you say in the end - my mortgage is the same as I paid for rent so renting doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing is that if I have to move back to India I will have to sell the house which I am not worried about since I live in a very good area and two houses in my lane got sold within a month last month at more than the price which I paid for my house.
As someone said real estate is highly local. Not all places in US are losing values . There are a lot of good areas which have reached bottom. The house I bought was 20% off from the price the person whom I bought it from paid in 2005. So that is already priced in.
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
2. Property taxes - these we write off from our income which again becomes pointless more or less
3. Maintainence - Now that is a personal thing - I lived in rented apartments for many years until last year end - The property admins don't replace things on demand - so you have to live with the same old appliances , carpets etc etc until they really die off since no one is going to replace them on demand . Things break so many times as they reach the end of their life and you call the property office each time and so on.
I would rather that I maintain my own things and have best of the market stuff rather than not.
Some people might say there are rented places where they have top of the line stuff but remember that the rent goes higher too. So that negates that point.
And coming to what you say in the end - my mortgage is the same as I paid for rent so renting doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing is that if I have to move back to India I will have to sell the house which I am not worried about since I live in a very good area and two houses in my lane got sold within a month last month at more than the price which I paid for my house.
As someone said real estate is highly local. Not all places in US are losing values . There are a lot of good areas which have reached bottom. The house I bought was 20% off from the price the person whom I bought it from paid in 2005. So that is already priced in.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Macaca
03-13 09:29 AM
Fixing Congress's E-Mail Woes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201369_2.html)
Studies have shown that lawmakers often ignore and sometimes do not even receive e-mails ginned up by interest groups. Deluged with thousands of essentially identical electronic messages, congressional offices are constantly trying to make it harder for organizations to blast them out.
Now Neil Hare, a former vice president of communications at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has devised a way around the problem. He just started ISupportThisMessage.com, a Web site that solicits citizens' opinions on political and legislative issues and promises to deliver the results -- on paper -- to every lawmaker's office.
Visitors to the site are invited to "vote" on a variety of issues such as child hunger and presidential candidates. The numbers are tallied and comments compiled for later distribution on Capitol Hill.
"This is a reaction to the failure of e-mailing," Hare said. "We will issue regular reports with our numbers and, over time, Hill staffers will be able to log on and see the results themselves." He said that lobby groups can buy their own spaces on the site for far less than full-blown grass-roots campaigns.
Studies have shown that lawmakers often ignore and sometimes do not even receive e-mails ginned up by interest groups. Deluged with thousands of essentially identical electronic messages, congressional offices are constantly trying to make it harder for organizations to blast them out.
Now Neil Hare, a former vice president of communications at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has devised a way around the problem. He just started ISupportThisMessage.com, a Web site that solicits citizens' opinions on political and legislative issues and promises to deliver the results -- on paper -- to every lawmaker's office.
Visitors to the site are invited to "vote" on a variety of issues such as child hunger and presidential candidates. The numbers are tallied and comments compiled for later distribution on Capitol Hill.
"This is a reaction to the failure of e-mailing," Hare said. "We will issue regular reports with our numbers and, over time, Hill staffers will be able to log on and see the results themselves." He said that lobby groups can buy their own spaces on the site for far less than full-blown grass-roots campaigns.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
nixstor
08-10 07:55 PM
Guys,
Did any one watch Lou this evening? I switched on the TV and I saw H1B visa on the back ground and Lou was just done thanking a guy for being on the network. What was that about?
Did any one watch Lou this evening? I switched on the TV and I saw H1B visa on the back ground and Lou was just done thanking a guy for being on the network. What was that about?
Marphad
12-17 03:31 PM
People:
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
hopefull
05-13 04:21 PM
You do make perfect sense. Dude the question posed to these buggers would be if they ever encounter a medical need where in a doctor present is not a white American, would they prefer to die or take the help of that doctor. If they pick the option of prefer to die inthat case they wouldnt be hypocrites otherwise they definitely ARE
What's going on here is that approx there are 500,000 people on H1B visas in this country.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
What's going on here is that approx there are 500,000 people on H1B visas in this country.
If Anti-H1 crowd propose a bill to throw all of them out, people will laugh at them and ask them to get lost.
So what the anti-H1 crowd has done here is "Slow bleed" as described by admin. Get rid of 8000-10,000 H1Bs out of the country each month. That way, the impact will slow and it wont send any shockwaves. IF existing H1s go to renew their H1 and the new rules apply, half of them wont fit in the new rules of "You cannot do consulting". So they will have to go back.
These guys are trying to do what UK did to Indian and Chinese doctors. They want all of us to go back. Only difference between what UK did to doctors and what these guys want to do to us is that these guys are smarter and they are trying to get this done in slow motion. IF they take Tancredo like approach of "Everyone out, and shut the door", then it wont work.
They have learned from Tancredo's mistake and now have adoped this slow bleed strategy of getting rid of their competition.
Basically, they want the 1990s back. They want to roam in job market with foriegn competition, where even high-school drop-outs can get jobs of $100,000 a year by writing 20 lines of code per week.
Man up you xenophobes. Face the competition and stop being whiny boys running to Grassley and Sessions every time you lose jobs. Get a job and get a life. Unemployment rate is 4.4 %. If you cant find jobs right now, dont blame H1B employees. Something is wrong with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment