yrspassby
08-07 04:47 PM
A retired gentleman went to the social security office to apply for Social Security.
The woman behind the counter asked him for his driver's license to verify his age. He looked in his pockets and realized he had left his wallet at home. He told the woman that he was very sorry but he seemed to have left his wallet at home. "I will have to go home and come back later." The woman says, "Unbutton your shirt." So he opens his shirt revealing curly silver hair. She says, "That silver hair on your chest is proof enough for me" and she processed his Social Security application.
When he gets home, the man excitedly tells his wife about his experience at the social security office. She says, "You should have dropped your pants. You might have gotten disability too."
The woman behind the counter asked him for his driver's license to verify his age. He looked in his pockets and realized he had left his wallet at home. He told the woman that he was very sorry but he seemed to have left his wallet at home. "I will have to go home and come back later." The woman says, "Unbutton your shirt." So he opens his shirt revealing curly silver hair. She says, "That silver hair on your chest is proof enough for me" and she processed his Social Security application.
When he gets home, the man excitedly tells his wife about his experience at the social security office. She says, "You should have dropped your pants. You might have gotten disability too."
wallpaper New judges Jennifer Lopez and
new2gc
03-24 06:19 PM
My Dear Friend:
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
panky72
08-07 09:56 PM
BLONDE LOGIC
Two blondes living in Oklahoma were sitting on a bench talking, and one blonde says to the other, 'Which do you think is farther away... Florida or the moon?' The other blonde turns and says 'Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????'
SPEEDING TICKET
A police officer stops a blonde for speeding and asks her very nicely if he could see her license.She replied in a huff, 'I wish you guys would get your act together. Just yesterday you take away my license and then today you expect me to show it to you!'
RIVER WALK
There's this blonde out for a walk. She comes to a river and sees another blonde on the opposite bank. 'Yoo-hoo!' she shouts, 'How can I get to the other side?' The second blonde looks up the river then down the river and shouts back, 'You ARE on the other side.'
AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
A gorgeous young redhead goes into the doctor's office and said that her body hurt wherever she touched it. 'Impossible!' says the doctor. 'Show me.' The redhead took her finger, pushed on her left shoulder and screamed, then she pushed her elbow and screamed even more. She pushed her knee and screamed; likewise she pushed her ankle and screamed. Everywhere she touched made her scream. The doctor said, 'You're not really a redhead, are you? 'Well, no' she said, 'I'm actually a blonde.' 'I thought so,' the doctor said. 'Your finger is broken.'
KNITTING
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel was knitting! Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn and yelled, 'PULL OVER!' 'NO!' the blonde yelled back, 'IT'S A SCARF!'
BLONDE ON THE SUN
A Russian, an American, and a Blonde were talking one day. The Russian said, 'We were the first in space!' The American said, 'We were the first on the moon!' The Blonde said, 'So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!' The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads. 'You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!' said the Russian. To which the Blonde replied, 'We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!'
FINALLY, THE BLONDE JOKE TO END ALL BLONDE JOKES!
A girl was visiting her blonde friend, who had acquired two new dogs, and asked her what their names were. The blonde responded by saying that one was named Rolex and one was named Timex. Her friend said, 'Whoever heard of someone naming dogs like that?' 'HELLLOOOOOOO......,' answered the blond. 'They're watch dogs!'
Two blondes living in Oklahoma were sitting on a bench talking, and one blonde says to the other, 'Which do you think is farther away... Florida or the moon?' The other blonde turns and says 'Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????'
SPEEDING TICKET
A police officer stops a blonde for speeding and asks her very nicely if he could see her license.She replied in a huff, 'I wish you guys would get your act together. Just yesterday you take away my license and then today you expect me to show it to you!'
RIVER WALK
There's this blonde out for a walk. She comes to a river and sees another blonde on the opposite bank. 'Yoo-hoo!' she shouts, 'How can I get to the other side?' The second blonde looks up the river then down the river and shouts back, 'You ARE on the other side.'
AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
A gorgeous young redhead goes into the doctor's office and said that her body hurt wherever she touched it. 'Impossible!' says the doctor. 'Show me.' The redhead took her finger, pushed on her left shoulder and screamed, then she pushed her elbow and screamed even more. She pushed her knee and screamed; likewise she pushed her ankle and screamed. Everywhere she touched made her scream. The doctor said, 'You're not really a redhead, are you? 'Well, no' she said, 'I'm actually a blonde.' 'I thought so,' the doctor said. 'Your finger is broken.'
KNITTING
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel was knitting! Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn and yelled, 'PULL OVER!' 'NO!' the blonde yelled back, 'IT'S A SCARF!'
BLONDE ON THE SUN
A Russian, an American, and a Blonde were talking one day. The Russian said, 'We were the first in space!' The American said, 'We were the first on the moon!' The Blonde said, 'So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!' The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads. 'You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!' said the Russian. To which the Blonde replied, 'We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!'
FINALLY, THE BLONDE JOKE TO END ALL BLONDE JOKES!
A girl was visiting her blonde friend, who had acquired two new dogs, and asked her what their names were. The blonde responded by saying that one was named Rolex and one was named Timex. Her friend said, 'Whoever heard of someone naming dogs like that?' 'HELLLOOOOOOO......,' answered the blond. 'They're watch dogs!'
2011 Jennifer Lopez Hot Photos
srkamath
07-13 05:59 PM
Agreed.....the categories were made for a reasson.....and the same logic is being followed by the DOS to spillover unused VISAS. While I understand the frustration of EB3 folks, I would encourage those same folks to folllow IVs initatives - call campaigns for House bils...
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
While I fear this will create an offshoot EB3 group within IV, I hope that goos senses will prevail.
FYI - EB2 is still retrogressed over 2 years.....it is not that it is current
EB1 EB2 EB3 are "preference" categories established by a law. This letter seems to be demanding that the DOS ignore the "preference" - Sorry it won't work.
Elsewhere in this forum someone has another letter campaign directed at visa re-capture legislation. That might have some influence.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:50 AM
..
unitednations
03-26 04:51 PM
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
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 American Idol Judges 2011
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:35 AM
Why did they not take the employer to court? Why make the EB2 line suffer for these employer's faults?
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
more...
bhatt
06-07 02:03 PM
I noticed that the $8k and $10k for California (which began in March 09) stimulus is taken by builders for their benefit. How did they do it?
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
Exactly, The realtors and the banks are too the beneficiaries for the 8k, not the buyers.
So don't buy the house for the sake of 8k. and Don't buy the home as an investment!
When I bought a house in March 09, the builder offered me great discounts (20k off the purchase price, interest buy down to 4.5%) and freebies (fridge, blinds, washer/dyer) so I took it. I bought the house for less than $90 per sq. ft.
After the $8k Fed. and $10k California stimulus have passed, builders use that as their sales pitch to attract buyers and removed their previously offered discounts (some still offers discount though but offset the stimulus benefits).
So, I believe that the builders/sellers are the real winner in the stimulus, not the buyers.
Exactly, The realtors and the banks are too the beneficiaries for the 8k, not the buyers.
So don't buy the house for the sake of 8k. and Don't buy the home as an investment!
hair 2011 American Idol Top 13
bajrangbali
06-07 01:08 PM
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
Investment strategies of any kind - options, stocks, etfs failed miserably in the past couple of years. I dont think that argument stands well to justify against buying a house.
Active trading is a double edged sword, if you lose you lose big..if you win..you bet even bigger..show me one ETF or mutual fund which did not lose money in this market. People are calculating how small they lost compared to their competitors.
Also, timing the market is very dangerous...maybe even worse than buying a house in boom-time..those who made money in bull run or by betting against in bear run, most will agree there is no such thing as free-ride..you win some, you lose some..same logic some of the other posters tried to convey for buying a house..
Risk is a risk no matter how we spin it...all those who have invested heavily in indian real-estate took risk as well..rates are flat now..granted we are comparing a developing market with a mature market..
end of the day everyone is trying to make good of their investment with as little risk as possible...when it comes to home..family, kids adds into the equation...
I would gladly lose 40-50K on a bad decision on house where I lived for many years with my family than invest in uncertain market and make bad decision there and lose it all on paper...ANYDAY
I guess everyone atleast most learnt a lesson with this recession...every recession teaches control..i bet those of us who are here during the previous recesison agree..we all came out with something positive out of it upon survuval..
Buying beyond the means is gone...now people are down to earth and making choices within their means...that is a positive take from this meltdown
To take this thread further, posters who are looking to close the deal or negotiating or closed can post the info regarding location, price, lenders, agents which would help others who want to get in..
Investment strategies of any kind - options, stocks, etfs failed miserably in the past couple of years. I dont think that argument stands well to justify against buying a house.
Active trading is a double edged sword, if you lose you lose big..if you win..you bet even bigger..show me one ETF or mutual fund which did not lose money in this market. People are calculating how small they lost compared to their competitors.
Also, timing the market is very dangerous...maybe even worse than buying a house in boom-time..those who made money in bull run or by betting against in bear run, most will agree there is no such thing as free-ride..you win some, you lose some..same logic some of the other posters tried to convey for buying a house..
Risk is a risk no matter how we spin it...all those who have invested heavily in indian real-estate took risk as well..rates are flat now..granted we are comparing a developing market with a mature market..
end of the day everyone is trying to make good of their investment with as little risk as possible...when it comes to home..family, kids adds into the equation...
I would gladly lose 40-50K on a bad decision on house where I lived for many years with my family than invest in uncertain market and make bad decision there and lose it all on paper...ANYDAY
I guess everyone atleast most learnt a lesson with this recession...every recession teaches control..i bet those of us who are here during the previous recesison agree..we all came out with something positive out of it upon survuval..
Buying beyond the means is gone...now people are down to earth and making choices within their means...that is a positive take from this meltdown
To take this thread further, posters who are looking to close the deal or negotiating or closed can post the info regarding location, price, lenders, agents which would help others who want to get in..
more...
hate_me
01-07 06:36 PM
Dude between 90,000 to 98,0000 people have been killed in suicide bombing and executions in Iraq from 2003 to 2008, more than 99% of them were muslims, and those suicide bombing and executions where conducted by muslims, your heart didn't bleed for them, why because they were muslims killed by muslims, so you are ok with that, but if muslims are killed by non-muslims in self defence then you talk about innocent muslims being killed. Hamas is ruling party and should be held responsible for the innocent killed because of their actions, if hamas wants they can stop firing rockets at israel and stop the israel from killing innocent civilians, but they are not doing that. But i guess you will never understand that.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from k
illing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from k
illing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
hot Jennifer Lopez Photos
dontcareanymore
08-05 02:33 PM
Friend,
Your questions are valid and great arguments.
Do i care to answer them all, no. But since we are talking and not fighting, yes i will take some time to provide my input.
Thankyou for asking my input nicely, i like to belong to a group of educated and people who wear a head on their shoulders.
Now a days its in fashion to go to school and call oneself educated, which to me this is as absurd as buying a piano and calling one self musician. This is my version of an old saying (trying a little bit).
Again thanks for your politeness, and showing brotherhood.
Here is my input.
you asked - You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
My 2 cents:
It was bad because many people were selling labor certificates. I know people who bought them for 10K, and got in green card line and well ahead in line than me and probably you ( we both are on the group today).
you said: How about Comparing job duties of all EB2s and EB3s
My 2 cents: why, what will this give you , other than some unrest and one more fight/arguments.
you said: Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
My 2 cents: Yes i agree. This lawsuit idea is also to stop unjust practice, with good intentions and not all.
you said: Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
My 2 cents:
you are right there are cases where porting makes sense, but you cant claim the same on all cases. There are cases where this practice is unjust and breaking the line.
Why do peole always port in favor of date/time to get faster green card. If porting is so justified ( job duties) how come no one ports to a category that is too late than one they are in.
Most importantly, you cant push people around, just be nice to people. Please.
I stand with you in this fight, but remember you stand with me too, and we stand together
to make a point for all.
Sorry , you can't hide your passive aggressiveness :)
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
Your questions are valid and great arguments.
Do i care to answer them all, no. But since we are talking and not fighting, yes i will take some time to provide my input.
Thankyou for asking my input nicely, i like to belong to a group of educated and people who wear a head on their shoulders.
Now a days its in fashion to go to school and call oneself educated, which to me this is as absurd as buying a piano and calling one self musician. This is my version of an old saying (trying a little bit).
Again thanks for your politeness, and showing brotherhood.
Here is my input.
you asked - You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
My 2 cents:
It was bad because many people were selling labor certificates. I know people who bought them for 10K, and got in green card line and well ahead in line than me and probably you ( we both are on the group today).
you said: How about Comparing job duties of all EB2s and EB3s
My 2 cents: why, what will this give you , other than some unrest and one more fight/arguments.
you said: Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
My 2 cents: Yes i agree. This lawsuit idea is also to stop unjust practice, with good intentions and not all.
you said: Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
My 2 cents:
you are right there are cases where porting makes sense, but you cant claim the same on all cases. There are cases where this practice is unjust and breaking the line.
Why do peole always port in favor of date/time to get faster green card. If porting is so justified ( job duties) how come no one ports to a category that is too late than one they are in.
Most importantly, you cant push people around, just be nice to people. Please.
I stand with you in this fight, but remember you stand with me too, and we stand together
to make a point for all.
Sorry , you can't hide your passive aggressiveness :)
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
more...
house Jennifer Lopez in the past
Madhuri
05-16 08:27 PM
Who knows what bills congress is going pass and not . I would rather live with status quo rather than things getting worse for me . They dont even let me file for 485 because of per country limits etc.....
I second that. I don't want to find myself in biggermess after all this is over.
I am talking about people whose permanent labors are approved but they can not get green card for whateever reason. My labor application for future job was applied 3 yeags ago in the past As per my employer job was available 3 years ago and government took its own time to adjudicate the application. Does my last statement sound illogical? Your analysis is same , I mean illogical .
Who knows what bills congress is going pass and not . I would rather live with status quo rather than things getting worse for me . They dont even let me file for 485 because of per country limits etc...
I second that. I don't want to find myself in biggermess after all this is over.
I am talking about people whose permanent labors are approved but they can not get green card for whateever reason. My labor application for future job was applied 3 yeags ago in the past As per my employer job was available 3 years ago and government took its own time to adjudicate the application. Does my last statement sound illogical? Your analysis is same , I mean illogical .
Who knows what bills congress is going pass and not . I would rather live with status quo rather than things getting worse for me . They dont even let me file for 485 because of per country limits etc...
tattoo american idol 2011 jennifer
morchu
08-03 02:29 PM
Not true.
All it matters is the "intention" to get employed in the offered position & the job duties of the AC21 job you have at the time of adjudicating 485.
Means.... never joining your original 485 employer ... by it self... wont cause any issue.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
All it matters is the "intention" to get employed in the offered position & the job duties of the AC21 job you have at the time of adjudicating 485.
Means.... never joining your original 485 employer ... by it self... wont cause any issue.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
more...
pictures 2011 Winter TCA Tour - Day 7
sw33t
12-28 05:12 AM
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
So your justification on spending billions more on what was lost is the right thing???
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Going to war to retaliate might give the impression of satisfaction, but the insecurity caused by trauma is still going to live on forever.
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Agreed!
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
Exactly. The state, the county, the city and the insurance company make money off of your will to comply! Thousands more will die off of your desire to go to war whereas the arms dealers make money.
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
So your justification on spending billions more on what was lost is the right thing???
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Going to war to retaliate might give the impression of satisfaction, but the insecurity caused by trauma is still going to live on forever.
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Agreed!
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
Exactly. The state, the county, the city and the insurance company make money off of your will to comply! Thousands more will die off of your desire to go to war whereas the arms dealers make money.
dresses Talk about American Idol 2011
gomirage
06-07 01:13 AM
I felt the same way before. I said to myself I wouldn't buy a house until I get my GC. That was until a builder offered me a nice offer. I was renting a two bedroom apartment for $1200 as I have a family with 3 small kids.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
more...
makeup Jennifer Lopez - 2011
desi3933
07-12 10:34 AM
No one??
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
Did you talk to your attorney? What is his/her take on this.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend 2011 American Idol 10
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez has revealed
hiralal
06-08 10:54 PM
I think nowadays you can get great deals in suwanee area, but in alpharetta area (ATLANTA) which is couple of exits towards the city on 400 highway.. are still selling for 400K..I am talking about 3000 sq ft, houses.. I got a quote for 420K with basement 3070 sqft.. with decent upgrades...
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
prices in suwanee (and in alpharetta) has come down a lot ..ofcourse you need to look ..if you try to buy from a person in denial ..you will feel prices have not come down. but there are lot of bargains in these areas
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
prices in suwanee (and in alpharetta) has come down a lot ..ofcourse you need to look ..if you try to buy from a person in denial ..you will feel prices have not come down. but there are lot of bargains in these areas
Macaca
03-19 01:20 PM
New Congress, Same Obstacles for Democratic Lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html), By Al Kamen, Monday, March 19, 2007
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
apt7
05-30 05:16 PM
According to wikipedia the def of a consultant is..
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar