bigboy007
10-05 06:13 PM
But as many have pointed out , I have same doubts whether US will maintain its edge with all these issues facing.
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
wallpaper tattoo it features Trey Songz.
axp817
03-26 05:57 PM
Per my understanding, it absolutely is. An LCA amendment has to be filed each time there is a location change outside of commutable distance from the original location for which the H-1B was filed.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
priti8888
08-09 06:43 PM
Hi UN,
Sorry to post here. I have posted in some other thread but no response.
I just got my FP notice for Aug 23rd for myself,spouse and 8yrs old son.My wife and son is in India, we cancelled our trip back in May for my 485.We waited till we got our receipts,they went to India for some important work.At this point they cann't make it by Aug 23rd. They both have valid H4 I797 with them.
Can you please advice, what is the best procedure to follow here.
1. Can I take my FP and request to postpone of my wife & son ?
2. Postpone for all three members, and request for a later date ?
3. Can we go after Sep3rd with the old receipts dated for Aug 23rd 2007?
Thanks In Advance,
kSR
since u r the primary applicant choose option 1
Sorry to post here. I have posted in some other thread but no response.
I just got my FP notice for Aug 23rd for myself,spouse and 8yrs old son.My wife and son is in India, we cancelled our trip back in May for my 485.We waited till we got our receipts,they went to India for some important work.At this point they cann't make it by Aug 23rd. They both have valid H4 I797 with them.
Can you please advice, what is the best procedure to follow here.
1. Can I take my FP and request to postpone of my wife & son ?
2. Postpone for all three members, and request for a later date ?
3. Can we go after Sep3rd with the old receipts dated for Aug 23rd 2007?
Thanks In Advance,
kSR
since u r the primary applicant choose option 1
2011 trey - Trey Songz Wallpaper
langagadu
12-26 11:29 PM
I would say india should start war and move every a** out of POK.
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
more...
munnu77
08-07 04:37 PM
Two little boys, ages 8 and 10, are extremely mischievous. They are always getting into trouble and their parents know all about it. If any mischief occurs in their town, the two boys are probably involved.
The boys' mother heard that a preacher in town had been successful in disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The preacher agreed, but he asked to see them individually.
So the mother sent the 8 year old first, in the
morning, with the older boy to see the preacher in the afternoon.
The preacher, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and asked him sternly, "Do you know where God is, son?"
The boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there wide-eyed with his mouth hanging open.
So the preacher repeated the question in an even sterner tone, "Where is God?!"
Again, the boy made no attempt to answer. The preacher raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and bellowed,
"Where is God?!"
The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into his closet, slamming the door behind him.
When his older brother found him in the closet, he asked, "What happened?"
The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied, "We are in BIG trouble this time.
.........................
("I just LOVE reading next line again and again")
...............................
...............................
.........................
..................
..............
.....
..
..
..
.
GOD is missing, and they think we did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The boys' mother heard that a preacher in town had been successful in disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The preacher agreed, but he asked to see them individually.
So the mother sent the 8 year old first, in the
morning, with the older boy to see the preacher in the afternoon.
The preacher, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and asked him sternly, "Do you know where God is, son?"
The boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there wide-eyed with his mouth hanging open.
So the preacher repeated the question in an even sterner tone, "Where is God?!"
Again, the boy made no attempt to answer. The preacher raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and bellowed,
"Where is God?!"
The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into his closet, slamming the door behind him.
When his older brother found him in the closet, he asked, "What happened?"
The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied, "We are in BIG trouble this time.
.........................
("I just LOVE reading next line again and again")
...............................
...............................
.........................
..................
..............
.....
..
..
..
.
GOD is missing, and they think we did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pappu
07-13 11:37 AM
My thougts are, writing letter would not help, It will go to deaf ears. EB3-I status is not hidden to any one DOS/USCIS/DOL, but looks like no one is doing any thing for that.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
more...
485Mbe4001
08-06 01:41 PM
Lets petition USCIS to scrap EB3 and send them home. Rolling_flood needs his GC real bad... We are unavailable today and will be U in 2010. you can have our 3k visa for your category.
Have you never jumped a line in your life, i bet you have.
We see it all the time, people will find ways to move ahead and so will you..nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is demeaning or ridiculing a group for you selfish needs...good luck with the law suit.. the least it will do is highlight problem our to a greater audience (Y).
Have you never jumped a line in your life, i bet you have.
We see it all the time, people will find ways to move ahead and so will you..nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is demeaning or ridiculing a group for you selfish needs...good luck with the law suit.. the least it will do is highlight problem our to a greater audience (Y).
2010 trey songz body
Macaca
10-02 11:02 AM
As China Opens, U.S. Lobbyists Get Ready to Move In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101672.html?hpid=sec-business) By Ariana Eunjung Cha | Washington Post Foreign Service, October 2, 2007
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
more...
Macaca
05-27 05:46 PM
The Next Great Resource Shortage: U.S. Scientists (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2074024,00.html) By ANDREW J. ROTHERHAM | Time
The word "stem" is tossed around so much at education meetings these days, you'd think you were at a gardening seminar. STEM is shorthand for "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics" � all fields that are growing, providing lucrative jobs, and key to future American competitiveness. That's why everyone from President Obama to the United States Chamber of Commerce is worried about whether we're producing enough STEM graduates from our colleges and universities. That this is a problem is one of the few things that everyone in education seems to agree upon.
Part of the push for better STEM education stems � sorry � from American companies claiming there are shortages of American workers able to take on certain roles. Each year, American technology and engineering firms push to expand the number of workers allowed under the "H-1B" visa program, a category that allows companies to hire foreigners in roles where they cannot find a qualified American citizen. Critics claim the H-1B program is more a ploy to allow companies to hire skilled workers cheaper.
STEM anxiety is also an outgrowth of larger concerns about American competitiveness. The growing number of STEM workers in countries like China and India has policymakers on edge. You often hear that China and India are producing many more engineers than the United States, but when researchers from Duke University looked closely at the numbers, they found that what's counted as an engineering degree in those countries would often be considered a vocational certificate or two-year degree in this country. The Duke team found relative parity between the United States and China and India when the engineering comparison was apples to apples.
And part of our STEM obsession is frankly just longtime habit. In the 1950s, it was Admiral Hyman Rickover calling for more math and science education as part of the effort to keep us competitive with the Soviets. Congress passed legislation to support math and science education in 1958 and advocates have been pushing for more ever since. Congress passed several STEM measures in just the last decade, including the 2007 America Competes Act, which includes measures to recruit and train teachers in STEM subjects.
Still, debatable need, confused statistics, and force of habit doesn't mean there isn't an actual STEM problem facing the United States. American students should be doing better in math and science than they are now, and we are arguably producing too few college STEM majors. If the global competitiveness race turns into a numbers game, we're in trouble absent dramatic improvements: If it were its own country, the populations of China and India aged 14 and younger would each still be among the top five nations in the world in terms of population. That means that even marginal improvements in education in those countries will pay big dividends and put them on a stronger competitive footing. Besides, there is little doubt that our own economic future hinges in no small part on remaining a leader in innovation in science and technology.
So we want more college graduates in STEM careers. How do we get them? Right now policymakers are fixated on upgrading the quality of the math and science teaching force through better recruitment and training. "Out-of-field" teachers � meaning those without proper training in the subject � remain an acute problem in math and science. Scholarships, loan-forgiveness, and even higher pay are all used to attract more teachers into STEM fields. More creative ideas are emerging, too. Math For America provides $100,000 fellowships for math teachers and Partners in Science gives science teachers the opportunity to undertake actual scientific work at national laboratories during the summer. All good ideas, but to some extent we're chasing our tail: Not enough STEM graduates means not enough STEM teachers, regardless of the incentives.
The second answer is to expose students to STEM fields early on and use scholarships and inducements for them to choose STEM careers. This is where the STEM rhetoric meets our educational reality: A lot of students are not going into STEM careers today not because they're unaware of the choice, but rather because they cannot make that choice because of the quality of education they are receiving.
Think about it. With high school graduation rates of only about 75 percent overall (and 64 percent for Hispanics and 62 percent for African-Americans) we lose a lot of potential STEM students long before college. At the same time, many students graduating from high schools are not taking the math and science courses necessary to pursue a STEM career. Experts estimate that only about one-third of graduating high school students are genuinely college-ready.
Of course, not all currently underserved students would choose STEM careers either. People chose their work for a variety of reasons. Yet it's a reasonable assumption that some percentage of currently underserved students would choose STEM just as some percentage of more advantaged students do now. So rather than trying to squeeze a few more STEM students from populations that can already choose STEM if they want to, perhaps policymakers should focus even more on giving currently under-served populations the ability to make a STEM choice in the first place. If you're not taking the right classes � or worse, if you're not in school � STEM careers are not a viable choice for you. Fixing that seems the path to the richest untapped vein of future American talent.
In other words, in the long term, the STEM agenda really isn't that different than the more general school improvement agenda. Linking the two more explicitly would also help make the push for STEM more relevant and engaging for parents than it is today. Because while education leaders can't shut up about STEM, it's hardly even on the radar of most parents � when they talk about stems they usually are talking about plants.
The Right Job? It�s Much Like the Right Spouse (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/business/22corner.html) By ADAM BRYANT | New York Times
The Downsized College Graduate (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/24/the-downsized-college-graduate) The New York Times
Top Colleges, Largely for the Elite (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html) By DAVID LEONHARDT | The New York Times
Five myths about America�s schools (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-americas-schools/2011/05/09/AFunW27G_story.html) By Paul Farhi | The Washington Post
The Failure of American Schools (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/06/the-failure-of-american-schools/8497/) By Joel Klein | The Atlantic
The word "stem" is tossed around so much at education meetings these days, you'd think you were at a gardening seminar. STEM is shorthand for "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics" � all fields that are growing, providing lucrative jobs, and key to future American competitiveness. That's why everyone from President Obama to the United States Chamber of Commerce is worried about whether we're producing enough STEM graduates from our colleges and universities. That this is a problem is one of the few things that everyone in education seems to agree upon.
Part of the push for better STEM education stems � sorry � from American companies claiming there are shortages of American workers able to take on certain roles. Each year, American technology and engineering firms push to expand the number of workers allowed under the "H-1B" visa program, a category that allows companies to hire foreigners in roles where they cannot find a qualified American citizen. Critics claim the H-1B program is more a ploy to allow companies to hire skilled workers cheaper.
STEM anxiety is also an outgrowth of larger concerns about American competitiveness. The growing number of STEM workers in countries like China and India has policymakers on edge. You often hear that China and India are producing many more engineers than the United States, but when researchers from Duke University looked closely at the numbers, they found that what's counted as an engineering degree in those countries would often be considered a vocational certificate or two-year degree in this country. The Duke team found relative parity between the United States and China and India when the engineering comparison was apples to apples.
And part of our STEM obsession is frankly just longtime habit. In the 1950s, it was Admiral Hyman Rickover calling for more math and science education as part of the effort to keep us competitive with the Soviets. Congress passed legislation to support math and science education in 1958 and advocates have been pushing for more ever since. Congress passed several STEM measures in just the last decade, including the 2007 America Competes Act, which includes measures to recruit and train teachers in STEM subjects.
Still, debatable need, confused statistics, and force of habit doesn't mean there isn't an actual STEM problem facing the United States. American students should be doing better in math and science than they are now, and we are arguably producing too few college STEM majors. If the global competitiveness race turns into a numbers game, we're in trouble absent dramatic improvements: If it were its own country, the populations of China and India aged 14 and younger would each still be among the top five nations in the world in terms of population. That means that even marginal improvements in education in those countries will pay big dividends and put them on a stronger competitive footing. Besides, there is little doubt that our own economic future hinges in no small part on remaining a leader in innovation in science and technology.
So we want more college graduates in STEM careers. How do we get them? Right now policymakers are fixated on upgrading the quality of the math and science teaching force through better recruitment and training. "Out-of-field" teachers � meaning those without proper training in the subject � remain an acute problem in math and science. Scholarships, loan-forgiveness, and even higher pay are all used to attract more teachers into STEM fields. More creative ideas are emerging, too. Math For America provides $100,000 fellowships for math teachers and Partners in Science gives science teachers the opportunity to undertake actual scientific work at national laboratories during the summer. All good ideas, but to some extent we're chasing our tail: Not enough STEM graduates means not enough STEM teachers, regardless of the incentives.
The second answer is to expose students to STEM fields early on and use scholarships and inducements for them to choose STEM careers. This is where the STEM rhetoric meets our educational reality: A lot of students are not going into STEM careers today not because they're unaware of the choice, but rather because they cannot make that choice because of the quality of education they are receiving.
Think about it. With high school graduation rates of only about 75 percent overall (and 64 percent for Hispanics and 62 percent for African-Americans) we lose a lot of potential STEM students long before college. At the same time, many students graduating from high schools are not taking the math and science courses necessary to pursue a STEM career. Experts estimate that only about one-third of graduating high school students are genuinely college-ready.
Of course, not all currently underserved students would choose STEM careers either. People chose their work for a variety of reasons. Yet it's a reasonable assumption that some percentage of currently underserved students would choose STEM just as some percentage of more advantaged students do now. So rather than trying to squeeze a few more STEM students from populations that can already choose STEM if they want to, perhaps policymakers should focus even more on giving currently under-served populations the ability to make a STEM choice in the first place. If you're not taking the right classes � or worse, if you're not in school � STEM careers are not a viable choice for you. Fixing that seems the path to the richest untapped vein of future American talent.
In other words, in the long term, the STEM agenda really isn't that different than the more general school improvement agenda. Linking the two more explicitly would also help make the push for STEM more relevant and engaging for parents than it is today. Because while education leaders can't shut up about STEM, it's hardly even on the radar of most parents � when they talk about stems they usually are talking about plants.
The Right Job? It�s Much Like the Right Spouse (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/business/22corner.html) By ADAM BRYANT | New York Times
The Downsized College Graduate (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/24/the-downsized-college-graduate) The New York Times
Top Colleges, Largely for the Elite (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html) By DAVID LEONHARDT | The New York Times
Five myths about America�s schools (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-americas-schools/2011/05/09/AFunW27G_story.html) By Paul Farhi | The Washington Post
The Failure of American Schools (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/06/the-failure-of-american-schools/8497/) By Joel Klein | The Atlantic
hair makeup trey songz wallpaper
psvk
08-05 06:02 PM
We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Print this out and pass to your partner for a greater understanding:
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
more...
NKR
03-28 05:10 PM
the bubble that we saw and are seeing is once in a life time event - it will never happen in USA for a long long time (in most places). it will happen more in places like bombay (2 bubbles in last 2 decade)..
With what you say, there is no guarantee for a long long time. So that means there is no guarantee till the kids become big and have their own kids, so should one live in an apartment for years and years?.
You say that renting gives you more mobility, why shouldn�t a person whose job is long term and who loves his job and who is not required to travel buy a house close by his office?
A house comes with its own baggage. Of course if someone decides to buy a house he would have already known what he is getting into. He would definitely factor in all the fees, taxes, insurance etc. Even considering all of these, if he/she thinks it is good for him and his family to buy a house, why should not having a GC prevent him from not buying?.
Dude, it will cost you less then 50$ for the paint. I and my wife painted our living room together by ourselves, when one is making a decision to buy a house costing hundreds and thousands of dollars do you think he will worry about kids painting the wall?.
The only rational point I see in your post is that it might not be a good idea to buy a house now and it probably makes more sense to wait and watch.
With what you say, there is no guarantee for a long long time. So that means there is no guarantee till the kids become big and have their own kids, so should one live in an apartment for years and years?.
You say that renting gives you more mobility, why shouldn�t a person whose job is long term and who loves his job and who is not required to travel buy a house close by his office?
A house comes with its own baggage. Of course if someone decides to buy a house he would have already known what he is getting into. He would definitely factor in all the fees, taxes, insurance etc. Even considering all of these, if he/she thinks it is good for him and his family to buy a house, why should not having a GC prevent him from not buying?.
Dude, it will cost you less then 50$ for the paint. I and my wife painted our living room together by ourselves, when one is making a decision to buy a house costing hundreds and thousands of dollars do you think he will worry about kids painting the wall?.
The only rational point I see in your post is that it might not be a good idea to buy a house now and it probably makes more sense to wait and watch.
hot 2011. trey songz wallpaper
485Mbe4001
09-26 06:17 PM
Good discussion. I am not a fox fan, but i read NYT and Drudgereport, listen to Rachel Maddaw as well as Handel. In fact i read any political and economics related blog i can lay my hands on. I understand your points.
My point is that people say he will do so many things, the problem is that the congress is not changing. The congress has to approve something so that he can sign it. Secondly no matter what you say companies will do whatever is right for the bottomline and share price. if he starts taxing companies they relocate, he has proposed increasing the social security taxes across all categories. Says he will not increase taxes for middle class americans but gives little indication of how he will finance the trillion dollar spending program. If his universal health program passes then you will see more deducted out of your paycheck. How will he create tons of jobs, how will he subsidize education. The fact of the matter is that he will be under exterme pressure if he is elected to office with such high expectations. He will be screwed if he increases taxes and screwed if he doesnt fund the programs he is promising all over the place.
As for long term, the country has to increase interest rates to support the current account deficit. IF you increase interest rates the economy will further go in the tank. The country has to increase taxes to fund SS or Medicare. If not they need to overhaul the SS and MC system and any pandering politican will never be able to make that change.
The fact of the matter is that both are career politicians and will do anyting to win. i just want to present an opposing view when one is painted as the saviour and the other a @$#@ in a total crapfest where no one is pure.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
My point is that people say he will do so many things, the problem is that the congress is not changing. The congress has to approve something so that he can sign it. Secondly no matter what you say companies will do whatever is right for the bottomline and share price. if he starts taxing companies they relocate, he has proposed increasing the social security taxes across all categories. Says he will not increase taxes for middle class americans but gives little indication of how he will finance the trillion dollar spending program. If his universal health program passes then you will see more deducted out of your paycheck. How will he create tons of jobs, how will he subsidize education. The fact of the matter is that he will be under exterme pressure if he is elected to office with such high expectations. He will be screwed if he increases taxes and screwed if he doesnt fund the programs he is promising all over the place.
As for long term, the country has to increase interest rates to support the current account deficit. IF you increase interest rates the economy will further go in the tank. The country has to increase taxes to fund SS or Medicare. If not they need to overhaul the SS and MC system and any pandering politican will never be able to make that change.
The fact of the matter is that both are career politicians and will do anyting to win. i just want to present an opposing view when one is painted as the saviour and the other a @$#@ in a total crapfest where no one is pure.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
more...
house Trey Songz trying to invent
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
tattoo Trey Songz | COMPLEX
indianindian2006
08-02 07:01 PM
Yes.
A little unknown thing is that even if you get married to someone who is eligible for 245i; you also get that benefit. Even if someone divorced a person who was eligible for 245i; they still get the benefit.
Therefore, someone who has overstayed, out of status and marries someone who had a labor or 130 pending before april 30, 2001 (even though this person was never out of status or overstayed); then spouse can claim 245i benefit.
You mean the spouse gets 245i benifit even if the spouse was not present here on dec 2000 and came after 2001.
A little unknown thing is that even if you get married to someone who is eligible for 245i; you also get that benefit. Even if someone divorced a person who was eligible for 245i; they still get the benefit.
Therefore, someone who has overstayed, out of status and marries someone who had a labor or 130 pending before april 30, 2001 (even though this person was never out of status or overstayed); then spouse can claim 245i benefit.
You mean the spouse gets 245i benifit even if the spouse was not present here on dec 2000 and came after 2001.
more...
pictures Trey Songz Wallpaper by
pappu
08-11 12:44 PM
The USCIS's "Yearbook of Immigration Statistics" is a valuable source of info in any immigration debate!
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/index.htm
One can catch on lies a lot of anti-immigration jerks and even the USCIS themselves using their very own data! You can clearly see how the number of employment based Green cards changed, for example, how sharply it dropped in 2003 for some reason (not in 2002 which could be explained by 9/11!). They have no explanation for this. Apparently they were told to do so. The sabotage is obvious. There are more interesting facts there. Say, one can check if a particular country really has contributed too many immigrants in the last years to be excluded from the GC lottery or not, while another country is for some (political) reason still eligible despite it exceeded the limit.
thanks for the link. I have forwarded this info to a statistician for analysis and if we can get some favorable arguments based on that data that can be presented as charts and graphs by IV.
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/index.htm
One can catch on lies a lot of anti-immigration jerks and even the USCIS themselves using their very own data! You can clearly see how the number of employment based Green cards changed, for example, how sharply it dropped in 2003 for some reason (not in 2002 which could be explained by 9/11!). They have no explanation for this. Apparently they were told to do so. The sabotage is obvious. There are more interesting facts there. Say, one can check if a particular country really has contributed too many immigrants in the last years to be excluded from the GC lottery or not, while another country is for some (political) reason still eligible despite it exceeded the limit.
thanks for the link. I have forwarded this info to a statistician for analysis and if we can get some favorable arguments based on that data that can be presented as charts and graphs by IV.
dresses Trey Songz Wallpaper Videos
485Mbe4001
08-11 04:11 PM
Dobbs is more worried about his show and ratings. i am sure he has an h1b working somewhere in his office or his old office at space.com. more importantly do you guys feel that he affects policy decisions or the immigration debates going on. if he barks let him bark...
I heard sensenbrener (wrong spelling but you know the guy) on the radio yesterday, it sounded like no way in hell he was going to compromise on his issue an let the bill pass. Now that is one guy people from IV need to talk to or send emails to, atleast to help him understand out point of view.
I heard sensenbrener (wrong spelling but you know the guy) on the radio yesterday, it sounded like no way in hell he was going to compromise on his issue an let the bill pass. Now that is one guy people from IV need to talk to or send emails to, atleast to help him understand out point of view.
more...
makeup Trey Songz Trey Songz
ItIsNotFunny
01-06 01:19 PM
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
I don't believe anyone directly condemns Muslims and Islam. Everyone has a great respect for the religion and its followers. The problem starts when one person condemns terrorists and other takes it on Islam. I hope you believe they are not related, then why some people react such way.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
I don't believe anyone directly condemns Muslims and Islam. Everyone has a great respect for the religion and its followers. The problem starts when one person condemns terrorists and other takes it on Islam. I hope you believe they are not related, then why some people react such way.
girlfriend Demi lovato her now trey songz
nojoke
09-28 12:59 AM
mc cain will bring the war to an end but it'll be in victory, and making sure there'll be be no need for any future war in the region. but barack's knee-jerk pull back would not only undermine the war, it'll lead to unrest, and potential problem in the future to which the US will be drawn into again. you have seen the same problem india has been facing from the same terrorists...if you just hurt them they'll keep coming back. but if you destroy them forever you can bring peace.
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
hmm.
needless war is strong on security
9/11 happened on bush's watch and it is clinton's fault.
Republican philosopy of less regulation is not the cause of reckless lending?
You will get more tax break under Obama's plan than McCain's. Google.
You watch FOX news?
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
hmm.
needless war is strong on security
9/11 happened on bush's watch and it is clinton's fault.
Republican philosopy of less regulation is not the cause of reckless lending?
You will get more tax break under Obama's plan than McCain's. Google.
You watch FOX news?
hairstyles trey - Trey Songz Wallpaper
senthil1
05-16 11:40 AM
My view is not based on my personal gain or loss. My view is even if they ban consulting H1b numbers will not be reduced so much and cap will be reached. Number of permanent jobs will increase and they will hire H1b only when there is real shortage. Why do you think IEEE-USA members are undeserving and lazy just because they are interesting to put restrictions in H1b? Infact they are interested in more green cards. We are appreciating. Just because they are pointing out some problems in the program we cannot brand them as anti immigrants or lazy people. We ourself know that there are some issues in the program. While we were studying in the college it was big achivement if our research article comes into IEEE. So IEEE is considered as one of world best academic association.
It is not TCS,Infy,Wipro is causing delay to GC. Infact I worked one of those companies and still they are one of best in India. Still I may work those companies if I go to India.
If there is real shortage of skilled people then we will pass all the tests which are given in Durbin proposal and we can get H1b. What is the problem in accepting? Infact I am not supporting Ban of H1b on consulting but other than that everything can be fine and easily passed by most of H1b persons. Anyhow it is my personal view and IV view is different. As a pro immigrant organization we cannot support any anti immigrant bill.
oh really!!! Your argument is exactly the same arguments used by lazy and undeserving members of IEEE-USA who simply want to eliminate their competition from the younger and more dynamic engineers from the other parts of the world. They also think that if H-1B folks will not come they will get all the jobs and their rate will go from $100/hr to $200/hr. You seem to think that Durbin-Grassley bill will create more permanent jobs for you. Why is there such a strange similarity between yours and IEEE-USA's thinking?
Companies will survive and they are good with that. Let’s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
Again, strangely enough, your views are identical to the views of IEEE-USA. The fact is, "more money" will be there for very small time. And then jobs will be outsourced to the person who would have come here to do the same job. In the final analysis, Durbin-Grassley bill only delays the demand and supply meeting each other for couple of months. But in the new setup, Durbin-Grassley bill is making sure that the job is outsourced for ever. True, before the job is outsourced, there will be "more money" and "more jobs" for small window of time. But then, it will be NO job till eternity. Its like, you can either be satisfied with the golden egg each week or you could choose to kill the hen that gives you the golden egg.
You will then join a permanent job and whine about someone laughing at you when you pass though the hall-way or not looking at you in the meetings when you are talking. So the bottom line is, there will then be different kind of abuse and exploitation. What will you do then? Maybe you could go to Durbin-Grassley again after a year and ask them to pass another bill to protect us from the "abusive" way someone laughs when you walk though the hall-way. I am sure IEEE-USA will help to promote a bill to protect ALL of us from such an "abuse".
It is not TCS,Infy,Wipro is causing delay to GC. Infact I worked one of those companies and still they are one of best in India. Still I may work those companies if I go to India.
If there is real shortage of skilled people then we will pass all the tests which are given in Durbin proposal and we can get H1b. What is the problem in accepting? Infact I am not supporting Ban of H1b on consulting but other than that everything can be fine and easily passed by most of H1b persons. Anyhow it is my personal view and IV view is different. As a pro immigrant organization we cannot support any anti immigrant bill.
oh really!!! Your argument is exactly the same arguments used by lazy and undeserving members of IEEE-USA who simply want to eliminate their competition from the younger and more dynamic engineers from the other parts of the world. They also think that if H-1B folks will not come they will get all the jobs and their rate will go from $100/hr to $200/hr. You seem to think that Durbin-Grassley bill will create more permanent jobs for you. Why is there such a strange similarity between yours and IEEE-USA's thinking?
Companies will survive and they are good with that. Let’s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
Again, strangely enough, your views are identical to the views of IEEE-USA. The fact is, "more money" will be there for very small time. And then jobs will be outsourced to the person who would have come here to do the same job. In the final analysis, Durbin-Grassley bill only delays the demand and supply meeting each other for couple of months. But in the new setup, Durbin-Grassley bill is making sure that the job is outsourced for ever. True, before the job is outsourced, there will be "more money" and "more jobs" for small window of time. But then, it will be NO job till eternity. Its like, you can either be satisfied with the golden egg each week or you could choose to kill the hen that gives you the golden egg.
You will then join a permanent job and whine about someone laughing at you when you pass though the hall-way or not looking at you in the meetings when you are talking. So the bottom line is, there will then be different kind of abuse and exploitation. What will you do then? Maybe you could go to Durbin-Grassley again after a year and ask them to pass another bill to protect us from the "abusive" way someone laughs when you walk though the hall-way. I am sure IEEE-USA will help to promote a bill to protect ALL of us from such an "abuse".
nogc_noproblem
08-06 11:40 AM
The owner of this drug store walks in to find a guy leaning heavily against a wall.
"What's with that guy over there by the wall?" ask the owner
"Well, he came in here this morning to get something for his cough. I couldn't find the cough syrup, so I gave him an entire bottle of laxative." Replied the clerk.
"You idiot!" Yelled the owner" You can't treat a cough with a bottle of laxatives!"
"Of course you can!" replied the clerk, "Look at him; he's afraid to cough!"
"What's with that guy over there by the wall?" ask the owner
"Well, he came in here this morning to get something for his cough. I couldn't find the cough syrup, so I gave him an entire bottle of laxative." Replied the clerk.
"You idiot!" Yelled the owner" You can't treat a cough with a bottle of laxatives!"
"Of course you can!" replied the clerk, "Look at him; he's afraid to cough!"
alterego
07-13 02:18 PM
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable.
However, I was also wondering about the old interpretation of the law. After the EB2-ROW numbers fall through to EB3-ROW and presumably make it current, the excess numbers go to EB2 China and India or does it go to EB3 China and India? Glad that someone else also caught this.
In the old interpretation after EB3ROW, it would be EB2C and I and then finally EB3I.
However, I was also wondering about the old interpretation of the law. After the EB2-ROW numbers fall through to EB3-ROW and presumably make it current, the excess numbers go to EB2 China and India or does it go to EB3 China and India? Glad that someone else also caught this.
In the old interpretation after EB3ROW, it would be EB2C and I and then finally EB3I.