Macaca
12-30 06:24 PM
3. The status of Tibetans in India proves that India is meddling in China�s internal affairs
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
wallpaper Gossip Girl Hairstyles
alisa
12-27 01:44 AM
Look at this way...
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Eastern border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
I agree with you to a great extent. The Pakistani society is fractured right now, and there is nothing to unite the country than a conflict with India.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Eastern border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
I agree with you to a great extent. The Pakistani society is fractured right now, and there is nothing to unite the country than a conflict with India.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
unitednations
08-02 12:03 PM
Actually, USCIS does nothing with the Consulate copy of G-325 if applicant has been in the USA for more than one year. You can find this fact in the I-485 Adjudicator's manual.
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
2011 gossip girls hairstyles. his
manub
07-07 10:19 PM
This is what I found in my research so far.
"Any out of status is ERASED after re-entry in the USA. For employment related I-485 application, out of status is counted ONLY after last entry and out of status upto 180 days is forgiven under section 245(k). Section 245(k) applies to ALL employment based I-485."
Section 245(k) is the BIGGEST difference between employment based I-485 and family based I-485
but I couldn`t find more about section 245 .I searched USCIS site.I don`t know what will get through the officer`s head.
"Any out of status is ERASED after re-entry in the USA. For employment related I-485 application, out of status is counted ONLY after last entry and out of status upto 180 days is forgiven under section 245(k). Section 245(k) applies to ALL employment based I-485."
Section 245(k) is the BIGGEST difference between employment based I-485 and family based I-485
but I couldn`t find more about section 245 .I searched USCIS site.I don`t know what will get through the officer`s head.
more...
gapala
06-05 08:28 PM
look at this thread.. counterproductive higher taxes to sustain the government spending on food, shelter and medical care.... means more technology job outsourcing..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=345957#post345957
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=345957#post345957
Macaca
12-30 08:20 AM
2007: Democrats in Control, but Thwarted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123000447.html) By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press, Dec 30, 2007
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
WASHINGTON -- It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence.
By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war split the party and cast shadows over other issues, spawning a series of legislative failures and losing confrontations with President Bush.
What to do about Iraq has turned into a dissing match so far-reaching and nasty that Congress's accomplishments are seen, even by some who run it, through the lens of their failure to override Bush and start bringing the troops home.
"There is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."
It's not as if the new Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing during 2007.
It gave the nation's lowest paid workers their first raise in a decade, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour in July. It will rise to $7.25 an hour in 2009.
Congress also cut in half the interest rates on federal student loans and boosted annual Pell grants for post high-school education by $260 to $4,310 in July, rising to $5,400 for the 2012-2013 school year. Bush signed the bill after initially threatening to veto it.
And just before Congress turned out the lights for the year on Dec. 19, Bush signed into law a sweeping new energy policy that requires automakers to achieve an industrywide average fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and small trucks of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump. Some analysts said the new law will render gas guzzlers relics of the past and make farmers rivals of oil companies in producing motor fuels.
"All of us deserve credit for getting some things done," Bush said in his year-end news conference, insisting that he doesn't keep score.
But on the eve of an election year with the presidency and control of Congress at stake, many others do.
In the year's firmest push-back against the Bush administration, Congress for the first time overrode one of Bush's vetoes, on a $23 billion bill for restoring hurricane-ravaged wetlands along the Gulf Coast and other water projects. The president had protested it was filled with unnecessary projects, but 34 Senate Republicans defied him.
Democrats scored other political victories as well. Most significantly, a Democrat-led investigation revealed a troubled Justice Department and forced Alberto Gonzales, a longtime presidential friend, from the attorney general's office. Democrats also played a big role in selecting his successor, Michael Mukasey.
But the story of Congress in 2007 is more about what it failed to accomplish during a war that the public opposes and that Democrats had vowed _ but did not _ to end.
On that, they found themselves repeatedly outmaneuvered, unable to break bill-killing GOP filibusters with 60 votes in a Senate where Democrats held only what effectively is a 51-49 majority.
Plans to expand health care for 10 million children stalled. And a fragile compromise put together by Bush and liberal Democrats to provide a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants buckled with only lukewarm support from all sides.
Perhaps the most bitter pill came toward the end of the year. Democrats were forced to acknowledge that the decrease in violence in Iraq might mean that Bush's much-criticized surge buildup of troops was working.
Simultaneously, they found themselves on the defensive against Republican charges that they squandered time on the war that could have been spent getting agency budgets passed on time. As usual, what has become an annual fix to the tax code to save 20 million families an average $2,000 in extra taxes was put off until the final days before Christmas.
Predictably, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.
Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush's "stubbornness" and Republicans' filibuster threats "obstruction on steroids."
Republicans suggested Democrats could have accomplished big reforms on Social Security and immigration _ or even just speedy passage of the federal budget _ had it been in their election-year interests.
"I just don't think the new majority wanted to do anything significant," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
By most accounts, the window for accomplishing broad new reforms was quickly closing as the nation's political machinery rumbled into position for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. On the ballot will be all 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
At stake is a wider Democratic majority, big enough to govern. A cascade of retirements by Republicans in the Senate made that goal achievable. Democrats hoped gain seats in the House, as well.
So they labored to tout what they had accomplished in the majority. They suggested that what failed this year might pass with more Democrats elected next year.
Bush has signed into law other initiatives of the Democratic-led Congress, such as $3 billion in funding for Louisiana's Road Home program to rebuild housing stock destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Procedural and institutional reforms became law as well, such as changes in ethics and lobbying rules.
Behind the scenes, Democrats and their aides debated which fights to pick next year with a lame duck president. Most likely, they said: the children's health care bill.
Immigration reform, however, appears dead until the new Congress takes its seats in 2009.
more...
waitnwatch
08-06 01:40 PM
Note that there is a difference between the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) alternatively also called US Code (USC). The CFR is an interpretation of the INA to practically implement the law on the ground. Therefore from what I know a CFR change does not need a change of law by Congress per se. It may need a public comment period but that is about it. So a lawsuit against the BS+5 may have some merit because it is only in the CFR and not the INA.
I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be one. So I would like to know if I'm totally wrong.
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
If you would like to read about related case, refer to this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B5%20-%20Members%20of%20the%20Professions%20holding%20Ad vanced%20Degrees%20or%20Aliens%20of%20Exceptional% 20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/NOV152005_02B5203.pdf
============================================
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
(k) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability.
(1) Any United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as an alien who is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. If an alien is claiming exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and is seeking an exemption from the requirement of a job offer in the United States pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act, then the alien, or anyone in the alien's behalf, may be the petitioner.
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be one. So I would like to know if I'm totally wrong.
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
If you would like to read about related case, refer to this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B5%20-%20Members%20of%20the%20Professions%20holding%20Ad vanced%20Degrees%20or%20Aliens%20of%20Exceptional% 20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/NOV152005_02B5203.pdf
============================================
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
(k) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability.
(1) Any United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as an alien who is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. If an alien is claiming exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and is seeking an exemption from the requirement of a job offer in the United States pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act, then the alien, or anyone in the alien's behalf, may be the petitioner.
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
2010 Hairstyles like Gossip Girl#39;s
gcgreen
08-06 12:59 PM
Same as you, I saw your post and couldn't help responding :-)
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
more...
Rayyan
01-07 05:58 PM
^^^^^
hair Leighton Meester#39;s Gossip Girl
dealsnet
01-07 05:16 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,
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
more...
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:17 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
hot Which curly hairstyle is
desi3933
08-05 10:53 AM
Why should they?
So, you don't believe in helping others.
So, you don't believe in helping others.
more...
house quot;Gossip Girlquot; Taylor Momsen
senthil1
04-08 07:28 PM
Finally anti immigrants will make the immigrants to fight to keep atleast whatever they have it now. If we want EB reform we may have to accept some H1b restrictions. Otherwise get ready for status quo and wait years and years to get gc with same H1b mess as this year. If you ask liberal H1b and liberal GC then you may not get anything. I will be surprised if Strive bill passes without meaningfull H1b reform. The situation is completely different from 1999 or 2000. If they bring multiple anti immigrant bills then everything may be dropped. Best way is to introduce that 50% of hires should be US workers. That will be best bet and that will not have any impact on current H1b holders
Hi pitha,
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like �Obama is against American Works�. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders��.
Hi pitha,
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like �Obama is against American Works�. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders��.
tattoo heard about gossip girl?
burnt
03-31 06:36 PM
Today I received a call from my lawyers office asking me whether my wife had taken the TB test as we skipped that test when we applied for I-485 in July 2007 as my wife was expecting at that time. My PD is Feb 2007
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
Lawyers office said they received a call from USCIS as they are getting the cases ready to be adjudicated. USCIS wanted to know whether my wife got her TB test done or not.
Did anyone else got such a call from USCIS? And Gurus, what do you all think this means?
more...
pictures TV series Gossip Girl as
unitednations
07-09 04:41 PM
Ah!! I see.....I do have the same i94 number on both the I-94s
desi is correct...
Everytime you extend non immigrant status; you are extending the white I-94 card on your last entry.
However; if you leave after the last extension and you re-enter then the white I-94 card you receive at the border overrides all previous white I-94 cards; extension of stays.
This is where the problem occurs:
H-1b for company A visa is valid until July 2009 and the h-1b approval for a is also valid until july 2009. You come into USA on white I-94 card and they gave validity until July 2009.
Now; you file for change of employer and extend status until July 2010. The notice of action will have the same I-94 number as the date of your last entry.
Now; you go outside USA; on your way back in the port of entry officer mistakenly gives you a white I-94 card only valid until your visa expires (july 2009). Now; if you overstay July 2009 then you would have been considered to be unlawfully present from July 2009.
Bottom line: your last action generally overrules your stay.
desi is correct...
Everytime you extend non immigrant status; you are extending the white I-94 card on your last entry.
However; if you leave after the last extension and you re-enter then the white I-94 card you receive at the border overrides all previous white I-94 cards; extension of stays.
This is where the problem occurs:
H-1b for company A visa is valid until July 2009 and the h-1b approval for a is also valid until july 2009. You come into USA on white I-94 card and they gave validity until July 2009.
Now; you file for change of employer and extend status until July 2010. The notice of action will have the same I-94 number as the date of your last entry.
Now; you go outside USA; on your way back in the port of entry officer mistakenly gives you a white I-94 card only valid until your visa expires (july 2009). Now; if you overstay July 2009 then you would have been considered to be unlawfully present from July 2009.
Bottom line: your last action generally overrules your stay.
dresses gossip girls hairstyles.
logiclife
06-01 06:09 PM
The culture of rant, the tendency of being angry at all times has landed success to many broadcast journalists, authors and politicians.
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
more...
makeup Blake Lively Hairstyles 2011
Better_Days
12-28 03:28 AM
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
girlfriend sportin#39; short hairstyles
texcan
08-26 07:58 PM
A few nice kavitas by Dr. Kumar Viswas.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufrHWVnPy8g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5RffA9QTWY)
hairstyles Blake Lively#39;s Gossip Girl
SunnySurya
08-05 02:56 PM
I just got several red dots for expressing my opinions...
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question. In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone. Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible. Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
file485
07-08 11:02 AM
unitednations..!!
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
No comments:
Post a Comment