nojoke
04-16 12:03 PM
hi NKR,
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
I have debated this with myself. I don't know if this is practical. How many of us are there who wants to buy a house? 500K at the most? For the first 3 months alone, this year, there are 500K foreclosures. I know every bit helps. But the problem is not that there are not people to buy. The price is too high. We probably can influence the local realtors. Just go to them and then back off saying that you are uncomfortable buying without green card. If a lot of us does that, the message will go up and maybe they will talk to law makers. Realtors are desperate...
I don't know how we execute this.
if you went for a townhome and you are happy then it is fine. I am sure you are a smart person and the main point is that you are happy where you are.
personally I am looking for a bigger place in alpharetta (where prices did go up a lot and is coming down ..websites show that there are foreclosures and my view is that I will find better deals in a year or so). at the same time I am happy with my decision and am having a great time.
I was giving examples of some of my friends who rushed to buy. atleast 2 of them are repenting now (since they bought it far away at v.high prices) ..and one of them is about to sell it after staying there for a year.
the point that nojoke and myself were making is that speculators (and careless people - those who could not afford but bought it, realtors, brokers etc etc) have pushed the prices to bubble territory. things are going to get much worse before it becomes better in most locations. there is no doubt about this. The other reason that I (and I guess nojoke) posted so many links was in good faith. i.e. we didn't want the hardworking immigrant to throw his/her money in a rush. this would only help the speculators and the other irresponsible speculators.
let me make one last point since this is immi / GC forum. I was trying to get more support for the idea to have a plan B (and I failed ..which is fine since I may get GC soon and I have a plan B for myself).
I agree (And hope) that IV has a good plan A (writing to senators, fasting , flowers etc) ..what I tried to say was that we should work on plan B (and maybe plan C too). if I was a core IV member then at the very least plan B would have meant ..meeting (or emailing - wherever and whenever it is legal) realtors, brokers or even senators etc etc ...and in turn use their lobby to lobby for our cause. if all the IV members were to do this at their local level --then who knows ..this may work. it is certainly worth trying.
from what I have read builders are big contributors to congress ..
I have debated this with myself. I don't know if this is practical. How many of us are there who wants to buy a house? 500K at the most? For the first 3 months alone, this year, there are 500K foreclosures. I know every bit helps. But the problem is not that there are not people to buy. The price is too high. We probably can influence the local realtors. Just go to them and then back off saying that you are uncomfortable buying without green card. If a lot of us does that, the message will go up and maybe they will talk to law makers. Realtors are desperate...
I don't know how we execute this.
wallpaper dinner at Waffle House.
ns33
07-13 12:20 AM
Great Job - Thanks for taking initiative... everyone please pitch in.
tinamatthew
07-20 07:15 PM
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
UN
You need to open an immigration advice center. Believe it or not you already have hundreds of clients that would readily leave their so called "lawyers" and move to you!! Think about it and remember to hire me when you are RICH :-)
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
UN
You need to open an immigration advice center. Believe it or not you already have hundreds of clients that would readily leave their so called "lawyers" and move to you!! Think about it and remember to hire me when you are RICH :-)
2011 at this Waffle House in
Macaca
12-27 07:32 PM
But they got no answers out of me�a total failure. Officer Xu, while asking me questions, kept kicking my legs. I said, "Be a little more civilized!"
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
more...
dtekkedil
10-02 10:46 PM
I have always been a supporter of Democrats. Because I believe in their philosophy. If I were a citizen, I probably would have even joined the Democratic party.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
like_watching_paint_dry
04-13 10:36 PM
thanks for the suggestion..I dont have those details..for now its all good..but I was thinking one more time, I will hire an attorney.. :)
You can try contacting the acquiring company. They usually also have all the records of the company they bought and may be able to give you a letter of employment or a HR contact who can respond to employment verification requests. I did this with my old company which got acquired after I quit, and the acquiring company obliged. They also discovered I had some uncollected pay, which I still need to cash out. :o
Fortunately, in my case, it never went that far where the IO was verifying all that information. Is this IO processing your G325A document?
You can try contacting the acquiring company. They usually also have all the records of the company they bought and may be able to give you a letter of employment or a HR contact who can respond to employment verification requests. I did this with my old company which got acquired after I quit, and the acquiring company obliged. They also discovered I had some uncollected pay, which I still need to cash out. :o
Fortunately, in my case, it never went that far where the IO was verifying all that information. Is this IO processing your G325A document?
more...
ashkam
04-15 02:59 PM
Are people seriously arguing that a child will not be happier in a bigger home, everything else remaining constant? Seriously, is someone actually arguing this?
And money can't buy happiness? Really? Are you saying everything else remaining constant if I gave you money it would make you sad? Seriously? Who is this person who would be sadder if I gave him money? I would like to meet him.
You people need to stop reminiscing about your childhood days and how happy your childhood was even though you had no money. I have a feeling that your child doesn't really care. Sure, give your child lots of love, but for Christ's sake, if you can afford it, don't make him / her spend his / her childhood in a small cramped apartment just because you had to.
And money can't buy happiness? Really? Are you saying everything else remaining constant if I gave you money it would make you sad? Seriously? Who is this person who would be sadder if I gave him money? I would like to meet him.
You people need to stop reminiscing about your childhood days and how happy your childhood was even though you had no money. I have a feeling that your child doesn't really care. Sure, give your child lots of love, but for Christ's sake, if you can afford it, don't make him / her spend his / her childhood in a small cramped apartment just because you had to.
2010 website about Jody, the Waffle House waitress | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Macaca
02-22 11:39 AM
Lou Dobbs makes 6+ Mils and gives his opinions on the best news network at close to prime time. We are rotting in retrogression. Most of us are tiger on IV forums but can not even wimper on non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
more...
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
hair Taking Sides: Waffle House vs.
SunnySurya
08-05 10:55 AM
Just fyi Rolling Flood and me are two different persons but must say your logic is compelling.
To me the whole system is unfair. Brilliant guys like you , who are authority in their field suffers, where as small timers who came here through a body shop get themselves in EB2 category because of twisted rules and laws get the most coveted green card much earlier than you.
All these are frustating.
Fighting system is one thing and protecting what is with in the reach is other.
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
To me the whole system is unfair. Brilliant guys like you , who are authority in their field suffers, where as small timers who came here through a body shop get themselves in EB2 category because of twisted rules and laws get the most coveted green card much earlier than you.
All these are frustating.
Fighting system is one thing and protecting what is with in the reach is other.
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
more...
devikas81
12-19 01:38 PM
All Pakistanis are not a Terrorist but all Terrorist are Pakistanis..
hot You don#39;t have to have waffles
Macaca
08-14 11:37 AM
Congressman, It's (Still) on Us: The Ethics Law's Many Loopholes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300980.html?hpid=topnews) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | Washington Post, August 14, 2007
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
more...
house The waitress seemed a little
sriwaitingforgc
08-06 04:17 PM
Wow, I love this thread. It gave me a good relief . Thanks to all .
tattoo No Waffle House this time.
Ahimsa
02-22 06:46 AM
... there would be more louder Dobbsians in the future if anti immigration gets established inteh general psyche of Americans as it has already in many, many, many european nations.
Dobbsians will fail in establishing anti-immigrant sentiments, because at anytime, general psyche of Americans will always be "US is a nation of immigrants". US is different in this respect compared to european nations.
Dobbsians will fail in establishing anti-immigrant sentiments, because at anytime, general psyche of Americans will always be "US is a nation of immigrants". US is different in this respect compared to european nations.
more...
pictures At the Waffle House this
amulchandra
04-07 02:39 PM
There are many big companies that depend completely on consultants for their software projects. Example Sony, Boeing... If this applies to existing H1bs then their projects will suffer a great loss.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
ERP softwares basically are implemented by consulting firms .Then all big companies including Oracle,SAP cannot implement their applications anywhere as they have to hire people on their own to implement.All ERP implementations can be treated as consulting.This is going to be a big mess.
I don't think this bill is going pass successfully.
dresses As if eating at Waffle house
ilwaiting
06-01 09:00 AM
I'm confused in the first place, How a public telivision channel like CNN allows to air this show. I'm sure there would have been stuanch critizicism for this show even in the political arena. His offending and never ending seemingly senseless talk on immigration aims at the Congress and even President on their reforms. Agree that we are in a world of freedom of speech but this is crossing the limits.
The problem is most often the information and numbers given on this show are not actual facts and often exaggerated and misleading. The info looks most likely derived from FAIR or NumbersUSA or Heritage foundation or one of their associates.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
The problem is most often the information and numbers given on this show are not actual facts and often exaggerated and misleading. The info looks most likely derived from FAIR or NumbersUSA or Heritage foundation or one of their associates.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
more...
makeup with our waitress.
bobzibub
01-07 05:54 PM
All communists (left) people cannot digest happenings in the new world. Communism & its extremists are a cancer in the last century, by God's grace is over. Now Islamic terrorists are the new avatar. Their fate will be same as communists. This guy get money to write article and book for them,
"extremists are a cancer"
"extremists are a cancer"
girlfriend Chase killed Waffle House
lfwf
08-05 06:49 PM
I think it is all subjective. You ask “Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?”. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask “Do years spent working have no value?”.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say “ No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS”, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I believe you missed the entire point.
YES the people with work expereince can ask that question- and in fact they ARE getting the benefit of those years.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit?
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them. What does it have to do with immigration lines?
I'll answer for you since you refuse to be objective.
The benefit of doing an advanced degree was placed in law as the ability to get a job in a higher preference category. That takes care of the lost years in getting a PD. When a person in EB3 becomes eligible for EB2, that's great, he/she gets to reapply and move to EB2 and take the benefit of the improved GC cut off dates. At this point if this person ALSO ports an old PD based on the years of work, which others in the EB2 category cannot use (they were training) it becomes a disproportionate advantage.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion.
I'm posting this mainly to frame the debate properly. All I hear from most people is innuendo and accusation. Everyone but the poster is a fraud, while the poor EB3 poster is genuine and cheated. What rubbish! There is some basis for angst over porting dates, just as there is basis for angst over people being stuck in EB3 because their employers chose it that way.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say “ No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS”, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I believe you missed the entire point.
YES the people with work expereince can ask that question- and in fact they ARE getting the benefit of those years.
Now, answer the question- why are the years spent in MS/PhD not getting any credit?
Whether you have money or not is irrelevant nonsense. This is like complaining that you are married so cannot have a girlfriend- that is your problem pal. Make your own choices, don't blame others for them. What does it have to do with immigration lines?
I'll answer for you since you refuse to be objective.
The benefit of doing an advanced degree was placed in law as the ability to get a job in a higher preference category. That takes care of the lost years in getting a PD. When a person in EB3 becomes eligible for EB2, that's great, he/she gets to reapply and move to EB2 and take the benefit of the improved GC cut off dates. At this point if this person ALSO ports an old PD based on the years of work, which others in the EB2 category cannot use (they were training) it becomes a disproportionate advantage.
If you and I both came in 2000, and I did a PhD and you worked..(this is not that far from my story- so it's not completely fictional), your PD might be 2002 and mine may be 2007. Now you are as close to current in EB3 as I am in EB2. Now if you jump to EB2 without porting), you would be 2008 (or even 2006) and given faster movement in EB2 you benefit. If you jump with porting, I'm totally screwed. You are way ahead of me simply because I chose to get the degree. Does it begin to make any sense? You are asking for the ability to get a GC because you have waited "x years". So HAVE I!!!!
Except that my PD does not reflect it like yours. If you still insist you have first right...well that's your opinion.
I'm posting this mainly to frame the debate properly. All I hear from most people is innuendo and accusation. Everyone but the poster is a fraud, while the poor EB3 poster is genuine and cheated. What rubbish! There is some basis for angst over porting dates, just as there is basis for angst over people being stuck in EB3 because their employers chose it that way.
hairstyles website about Jody, the Waffle House waitress | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Macaca
12-27 08:33 PM
The Speaker's Grand Illusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601484.html) Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished By David S. Broder | Washington Post, Dec 27, 2007
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
a_paradkar
08-05 10:19 AM
Nice one
willwin
07-13 04:01 PM
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any spilt will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
Delax, EB1 with PD 2008 is getting their GC within months not because they utilize an 100% spill over from 'somewhere'. It is just because they do not have enough applicants in the queue and hence no retrogression.
Honestly, 'i don't think' the 'advantage' that EB3 and EB2 have - using spillover from other categories. Correct me if I was wrong.
Any spilt will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
Delax, EB1 with PD 2008 is getting their GC within months not because they utilize an 100% spill over from 'somewhere'. It is just because they do not have enough applicants in the queue and hence no retrogression.
Honestly, 'i don't think' the 'advantage' that EB3 and EB2 have - using spillover from other categories. Correct me if I was wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment