lfwf
08-06 04:19 PM
If you go strictly by that, then allocating unused EB1 visa numbers to EB2 is also wrong. EB1 visas are meant for an entirely different skill set and job.
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
no those are unused numbers and are "physcially ported" to Eb2 before they can be used, and then to Eb3. the applicant does not jump to the higher category!!!
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
no those are unused numbers and are "physcially ported" to Eb2 before they can be used, and then to Eb3. the applicant does not jump to the higher category!!!
wallpaper American Idol 2011 bikini
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
DSJ
05-17 02:54 PM
That is my point, being an employee you are not fully working for your company growth. Then don't talk about a consultant is illegal when he don't get paid.
If it is really illegal why are they renew H1 when they can know that somebody is not paid for couple of months. All they want is money, you keep paying, you are safe and legal here.
Your point being? If you think what I am saying is wrong, argue your case please... Case and point: The abusers prevent some honest people from getting a chance. We should all be infuriated by that.
If it is really illegal why are they renew H1 when they can know that somebody is not paid for couple of months. All they want is money, you keep paying, you are safe and legal here.
Your point being? If you think what I am saying is wrong, argue your case please... Case and point: The abusers prevent some honest people from getting a chance. We should all be infuriated by that.
2011 wins American Idol 2011
gcisadawg
12-26 11:16 PM
to clean our bottom. I agree. We have to do it ourselves.However, attacking terror camps in Pak by India is not going to solve the problem.
We are dealing with mad , fanatic , fundemantalistic army with weak democratic government.I think majority of Pak citizens are like us.They don't want war. The ideal way is squeeze that country by economic sanctions, international seperation etc.
If we attack even the so called terror camps, the Laskar e Toiba people will be gone long time ago. May be we have to satisfy by killing the some innocent Pak citizens by those surgical attacks.
World policeman America did the similar cleaning business by arming the fanatics in Afganistan to oust Soviet army from Afganistan. The devil nourished by America with support of Saitan ISI is biting back US now.
Israel is not sleeping peacefully. OK they won the six days war by preemptive strike of Egypt. What happened now ? Stupid palestinan Hamas fire two rockets killing two isralies inturn killing of twenty innocent paletinaian by brutal isral army. Is the middle east problem solved by preemptive attack or postemptive attack? It will be solved by mutual giving and taking not by war.
You don't want to get tore away your front and back by fighting with lunatic Pak military. You may destroy the Pakistan, but you will be without front to
--- and back to ----.You means not you. Our brave Indian soldiers.You will be sitting in your airconditioned room , watching the live relay in CNN of Indo-Pak war and happy with mutual assured destruction the war will bring on both poor countries.
So, let US army to attack the so called camps .They are already doing in the Afgan-Pak border. Let them tilt their gun little bit more so that the camps on POK also get hit.
It is foolish to get killed.Let the other man do the job for you.Let the world policeman do what it preaches. " War on terror ".
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
We are dealing with mad , fanatic , fundemantalistic army with weak democratic government.I think majority of Pak citizens are like us.They don't want war. The ideal way is squeeze that country by economic sanctions, international seperation etc.
If we attack even the so called terror camps, the Laskar e Toiba people will be gone long time ago. May be we have to satisfy by killing the some innocent Pak citizens by those surgical attacks.
World policeman America did the similar cleaning business by arming the fanatics in Afganistan to oust Soviet army from Afganistan. The devil nourished by America with support of Saitan ISI is biting back US now.
Israel is not sleeping peacefully. OK they won the six days war by preemptive strike of Egypt. What happened now ? Stupid palestinan Hamas fire two rockets killing two isralies inturn killing of twenty innocent paletinaian by brutal isral army. Is the middle east problem solved by preemptive attack or postemptive attack? It will be solved by mutual giving and taking not by war.
You don't want to get tore away your front and back by fighting with lunatic Pak military. You may destroy the Pakistan, but you will be without front to
--- and back to ----.You means not you. Our brave Indian soldiers.You will be sitting in your airconditioned room , watching the live relay in CNN of Indo-Pak war and happy with mutual assured destruction the war will bring on both poor countries.
So, let US army to attack the so called camps .They are already doing in the Afgan-Pak border. Let them tilt their gun little bit more so that the camps on POK also get hit.
It is foolish to get killed.Let the other man do the job for you.Let the world policeman do what it preaches. " War on terror ".
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...
Macaca
05-30 05:44 PM
What Will It Take for Companies to Unlock Their Cash Hoards? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576349282770703112.html) By JASON ZWEIG | Wall Street Journal
There is a cash crisis in corporate America�although it comes not from a shortage of the stuff, but from a surplus.
In the first quarter, the five companies with the greatest cash hoards�Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Google, Apple and Johnson & Johnson�added $15 billion in cash and marketable securities to their balance sheets. Microsoft alone packed away roughly $9 billion, or $100 million a day. All told, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are sitting on more than $960 billion in cash, a record.
To be sure, at many companies the cash piling up is at global operations that generate "undistributed foreign earnings" that can't be brought home, under U.S. law, without incurring taxes of up to 35%. But hundreds of billions in cash remain available�and idle.
Meanwhile, the payout ratio�the proportion of earnings paid out as dividend income to shareholders�fell to 28.9% for the past four quarters. That, says S&P senior index analyst Howard Silverblatt, is the lowest level since 1936. Dividends are going up�Intel, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have recently raised them�but cash is still piling up far faster than most industrial giants can possibly find a prudent use for it. Of course, investors themselves might have a better use for the cash, if they could get at it.
As Daniel Peris, co-manager of the Federated Strategic Value Dividend fund, says, "The likelihood of spending money poorly is increased by having a surplus of it."
Microsoft's purchase price for the online telecommunications firm Skype, widely criticized as too rich at $8.5 billion, almost precisely matches the amount of cash that Microsoft raked in last quarter. Was that torrent of cash burning a hole in Microsoft's pocket?
"No way," says Bill Koefoed, general manager of investor relations at Microsoft. "We see this as being a very strategic acquisition."
The heart of the problem, as the great investor Benjamin Graham pointed out decades ago, is that the best interests of corporate management and outside investors are at odds. That is especially true for giant companies whose growth has been slowing. "The more dubious the company's prospects�the more anxious management is to retain all the cash it can in the business," Graham wrote. "But the stockholders would be well advised to take out all the capital that can be safely spared, because these funds are much more valuable to them if in their own pockets, or invested elsewhere."
Amnesia is another culprit. In the past, companies paid out vastly more of their profits as dividends, and they should again. "If there were a greater historical sensibility among investors and managers," Mr. Peris says, today's low payouts "would be called out as an abnormal situation that's likely to lead to that money being less well-spent than it otherwise might be."
Dividends have gotten short shrift in recent years as investors have come to favor companies that instead use cash surpluses to buy back their shares. Meanwhile, with the economic recovery barely out of the sickbed, many companies are reluctant to invest heavily in expansion. Others want to keep cash handy for potential acquisitions. So cash sits idle�even as interest rates, after inflation, are so low that cash often produces negative real returns.
Benjamin Graham made three simple proposals in 1951 that deserve to be revived.
First, investors need to realize that a company's cash is a valuable asset, even when interest rates are low; if management won't put it to good use, investors must speak up. As Graham wrote: "When the results on capital are unsatisfactory, it is appropriate for stockholders to�insist that it be returned to stockholders on an equitable basis."
Second, companies should set formal dividend policies. Rather than paying or raising dividends out of the blue, they should state in advance what proportion of earnings they expect to pay out as cash dividends. If, instead, they plan to use excess cash to buy back shares, they should offer hard evidence that the stock is undervalued.
Finally, Graham advocated that leading companies should pay out two-thirds of their earnings as dividends. That rate isn't as radical as it might sound, even though it would amount to more than a doubling from today's levels. The dividend payout, as a percentage of total profits, has averaged 52.3% since 1936 and 46% over the past two decades, according to Standard & Poor's.
If the companies in the S&P 500 raised their payout ratio to 50%, Mr. Silverblatt estimates, that would put an extra $207 billion into investors' pockets�at a time when shareholders' dividend income is taxed at historically low rates.
"Companies are basically earning more than they've ever made before, but their payouts are nowhere near that high," says Mr. Silverblatt. "They're holding their cash really tight. You can call them Scrooges if you want."
A Generation of Slackers? Not So Much (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/weekinreview/29graduates.html) By CATHERINE RAMPELL | The New York Times
Made in America: Manufacturing Jobs Are Coming Home (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/26/Made-in-America-Manufacturing-Jobs-Are-Coming-Home.aspx) By Patrick Smith | Fiscal Times
There is a cash crisis in corporate America�although it comes not from a shortage of the stuff, but from a surplus.
In the first quarter, the five companies with the greatest cash hoards�Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Google, Apple and Johnson & Johnson�added $15 billion in cash and marketable securities to their balance sheets. Microsoft alone packed away roughly $9 billion, or $100 million a day. All told, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are sitting on more than $960 billion in cash, a record.
To be sure, at many companies the cash piling up is at global operations that generate "undistributed foreign earnings" that can't be brought home, under U.S. law, without incurring taxes of up to 35%. But hundreds of billions in cash remain available�and idle.
Meanwhile, the payout ratio�the proportion of earnings paid out as dividend income to shareholders�fell to 28.9% for the past four quarters. That, says S&P senior index analyst Howard Silverblatt, is the lowest level since 1936. Dividends are going up�Intel, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have recently raised them�but cash is still piling up far faster than most industrial giants can possibly find a prudent use for it. Of course, investors themselves might have a better use for the cash, if they could get at it.
As Daniel Peris, co-manager of the Federated Strategic Value Dividend fund, says, "The likelihood of spending money poorly is increased by having a surplus of it."
Microsoft's purchase price for the online telecommunications firm Skype, widely criticized as too rich at $8.5 billion, almost precisely matches the amount of cash that Microsoft raked in last quarter. Was that torrent of cash burning a hole in Microsoft's pocket?
"No way," says Bill Koefoed, general manager of investor relations at Microsoft. "We see this as being a very strategic acquisition."
The heart of the problem, as the great investor Benjamin Graham pointed out decades ago, is that the best interests of corporate management and outside investors are at odds. That is especially true for giant companies whose growth has been slowing. "The more dubious the company's prospects�the more anxious management is to retain all the cash it can in the business," Graham wrote. "But the stockholders would be well advised to take out all the capital that can be safely spared, because these funds are much more valuable to them if in their own pockets, or invested elsewhere."
Amnesia is another culprit. In the past, companies paid out vastly more of their profits as dividends, and they should again. "If there were a greater historical sensibility among investors and managers," Mr. Peris says, today's low payouts "would be called out as an abnormal situation that's likely to lead to that money being less well-spent than it otherwise might be."
Dividends have gotten short shrift in recent years as investors have come to favor companies that instead use cash surpluses to buy back their shares. Meanwhile, with the economic recovery barely out of the sickbed, many companies are reluctant to invest heavily in expansion. Others want to keep cash handy for potential acquisitions. So cash sits idle�even as interest rates, after inflation, are so low that cash often produces negative real returns.
Benjamin Graham made three simple proposals in 1951 that deserve to be revived.
First, investors need to realize that a company's cash is a valuable asset, even when interest rates are low; if management won't put it to good use, investors must speak up. As Graham wrote: "When the results on capital are unsatisfactory, it is appropriate for stockholders to�insist that it be returned to stockholders on an equitable basis."
Second, companies should set formal dividend policies. Rather than paying or raising dividends out of the blue, they should state in advance what proportion of earnings they expect to pay out as cash dividends. If, instead, they plan to use excess cash to buy back shares, they should offer hard evidence that the stock is undervalued.
Finally, Graham advocated that leading companies should pay out two-thirds of their earnings as dividends. That rate isn't as radical as it might sound, even though it would amount to more than a doubling from today's levels. The dividend payout, as a percentage of total profits, has averaged 52.3% since 1936 and 46% over the past two decades, according to Standard & Poor's.
If the companies in the S&P 500 raised their payout ratio to 50%, Mr. Silverblatt estimates, that would put an extra $207 billion into investors' pockets�at a time when shareholders' dividend income is taxed at historically low rates.
"Companies are basically earning more than they've ever made before, but their payouts are nowhere near that high," says Mr. Silverblatt. "They're holding their cash really tight. You can call them Scrooges if you want."
A Generation of Slackers? Not So Much (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/weekinreview/29graduates.html) By CATHERINE RAMPELL | The New York Times
Made in America: Manufacturing Jobs Are Coming Home (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/26/Made-in-America-Manufacturing-Jobs-Are-Coming-Home.aspx) By Patrick Smith | Fiscal Times
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
Macaca
05-09 05:50 PM
�Big Stick 306� and China�s Contempt for the Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06fri3.html) New York Times Editorial
China�s harassment of human rights activists and the lawyers who defend them is well known. But Beijing�s contempt for the law doesn�t stop there. It is increasingly harassing and jailing lawyers who represent criminal defendants. As a result, many have become too fearful to collect evidence or provide their clients a robust defense.
Li Zhuang went on trial last month for allegedly fabricating evidence in support of one of his clients. As Ian Johnson reported in The Times, many in China believe the lawyer was framed for pushing back against corruption. Three days later, prosecutors dropped the charges, likely because the case had drawn so much attention at home and abroad. But Mr. Li remains in prison for a previous conviction on a similar made-up charge and Caixin, a Chinese news Web site, reported that a law firm where Mr. Li worked remains �under criminal investigation.�
Criminal lawyers in China have long spoken of �Three Difficulties�: how hard it is for them to meet with clients, collect evidence about their cases and review the evidence gathered by the prosecution. Now, the phrase is used to describe how risky it is to do the work � period.
They point in particular to article 306 of China�s Criminal Law � �Big Stick 306� � that they say gives prosecutors unlimited power to intimidate lawyers and derail defenses. Any defense lawyer accused of fabricating evidence or inducing a witness to change his testimony, as Mr. Li was, can be immediately detained, arrested and prosecuted for perjury. Although the majority of lawyers prosecuted have been acquitted, the long, demeaning process of investigation is severe punishment.
Sida Liu and Terence Halliday, who study the Chinese legal system, estimate hundreds of defense lawyers have been prosecuted under �Big Stick 306.� They say it is why �the vast majority of Chinese lawyers do not collect their own evidence in criminal cases.�
If lawyers don�t gather evidence to defend clients, they lack a critical tool for making sure the state applies its power fairly. China can make no claim to seriousness about the rule of law until it guarantees the rights of lawyers to do their job.
Beijing Blames Foreigners for Its Fears of Unrest (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09china.html) By EDWARD WONG AND JONATHAN ANSFIELD | THE NEW YORK TIMES
Two Chinese journalists missing, feared detained (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3178&Itemid=206) By Committee to Protect Journalists | Asia Sentinel
No spies and crime on TV, please. We�re Chinese (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/no-spies-and-crime-on-tv-please-were-chinese/article2012273/) Globe and Mail
China sets up agency to tighten grip on Internet (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/china-sets-up-agency-to-tighten-grip-on-internet/article2009972/) Reuters
The empty talk of Wen Jiabao (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME06Ad01.html) By Kent Ewing | Asia Times
China should honor its own human rights laws (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/frank-ching/2011/05/04/301024/China-should.htm) By Frank Ching | China Post
China�s harassment of human rights activists and the lawyers who defend them is well known. But Beijing�s contempt for the law doesn�t stop there. It is increasingly harassing and jailing lawyers who represent criminal defendants. As a result, many have become too fearful to collect evidence or provide their clients a robust defense.
Li Zhuang went on trial last month for allegedly fabricating evidence in support of one of his clients. As Ian Johnson reported in The Times, many in China believe the lawyer was framed for pushing back against corruption. Three days later, prosecutors dropped the charges, likely because the case had drawn so much attention at home and abroad. But Mr. Li remains in prison for a previous conviction on a similar made-up charge and Caixin, a Chinese news Web site, reported that a law firm where Mr. Li worked remains �under criminal investigation.�
Criminal lawyers in China have long spoken of �Three Difficulties�: how hard it is for them to meet with clients, collect evidence about their cases and review the evidence gathered by the prosecution. Now, the phrase is used to describe how risky it is to do the work � period.
They point in particular to article 306 of China�s Criminal Law � �Big Stick 306� � that they say gives prosecutors unlimited power to intimidate lawyers and derail defenses. Any defense lawyer accused of fabricating evidence or inducing a witness to change his testimony, as Mr. Li was, can be immediately detained, arrested and prosecuted for perjury. Although the majority of lawyers prosecuted have been acquitted, the long, demeaning process of investigation is severe punishment.
Sida Liu and Terence Halliday, who study the Chinese legal system, estimate hundreds of defense lawyers have been prosecuted under �Big Stick 306.� They say it is why �the vast majority of Chinese lawyers do not collect their own evidence in criminal cases.�
If lawyers don�t gather evidence to defend clients, they lack a critical tool for making sure the state applies its power fairly. China can make no claim to seriousness about the rule of law until it guarantees the rights of lawyers to do their job.
Beijing Blames Foreigners for Its Fears of Unrest (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09china.html) By EDWARD WONG AND JONATHAN ANSFIELD | THE NEW YORK TIMES
Two Chinese journalists missing, feared detained (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3178&Itemid=206) By Committee to Protect Journalists | Asia Sentinel
No spies and crime on TV, please. We�re Chinese (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/no-spies-and-crime-on-tv-please-were-chinese/article2012273/) Globe and Mail
China sets up agency to tighten grip on Internet (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/china-sets-up-agency-to-tighten-grip-on-internet/article2009972/) Reuters
The empty talk of Wen Jiabao (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME06Ad01.html) By Kent Ewing | Asia Times
China should honor its own human rights laws (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/frank-ching/2011/05/04/301024/China-should.htm) By Frank Ching | China Post
2010 american idol paul mcdonald
nogc_noproblem
08-08 11:23 PM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
more...
waitnwatch
08-05 03:24 PM
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
If it's the law then Yates 2000 memo is having unintended consequences after retrogression hit.
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
If it's the law then Yates 2000 memo is having unintended consequences after retrogression hit.
hair American Idol (2011) Top 12
diptam
08-05 11:13 AM
By now , we know very well who you are !! Because you ran away when peoples asked you real questions.
To answer your question same company can have EB2 as well as EB3 jobs and same person can be eligible for both Eb2 and Eb3 - that's why there is nothing illegitimate in porting/interfiling. Now a good % of folks port/interfile from a different company and according to your post that is not lawsuit material - right ?
Remember i'm planning to port to EB2 from Eb3 using a different company - according to you that's allowed ! Remember still EB2 quota will get exhausted .....
As per as your foul language complaint - please tune onto Talk radio and catch up with Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage - I'm sure your benchmark about 'Foul Language' will quickly change Sir !
Good bye !
Show me where it says in the law that a "person's eligibility decides EB1/2/3"? Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir. I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
To answer your question same company can have EB2 as well as EB3 jobs and same person can be eligible for both Eb2 and Eb3 - that's why there is nothing illegitimate in porting/interfiling. Now a good % of folks port/interfile from a different company and according to your post that is not lawsuit material - right ?
Remember i'm planning to port to EB2 from Eb3 using a different company - according to you that's allowed ! Remember still EB2 quota will get exhausted .....
As per as your foul language complaint - please tune onto Talk radio and catch up with Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage - I'm sure your benchmark about 'Foul Language' will quickly change Sir !
Good bye !
Show me where it says in the law that a "person's eligibility decides EB1/2/3"? Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir. I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
more...
gccovet
08-05 04:10 PM
WOW!!!!!!!!!!Rolling_Flood will be ROFLOL!!!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
What a waste of time, folks!!!!
hot 2011 American Idol 2011: Top 9
Refugee_New
01-06 04:37 PM
Slow down chief, not so fast.
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. This doesn't bother/don't care attitude is what making people angry. If you care death of 4 people and don't even bother to care the death of innocent school kids, then there is some problem with people who claim to be peaceful and peace loving nation. Its called double standard and hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=sanju;308870]
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community.
The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. If terrorists kill innocent civilians, first thing they'll say is "Islamic Terrorism". Don't tell me media around the world didn't use this term. Anything and everything blamed on religion and people following the religion. But When you kill muslims in hundreds, you won't say even a single word.
Don't tell me members of this forum didn't blame muslims and their faith.
Its your twisted belief that all muslims support terrorism or they defend terrorists. Its your twisted belief fed by biased media and biased religious and political leaders. I won't blame you.
[QUOTE]
There are two ways to give coverage to an issue. One could be decided based on how many people are affected, second could be based on how may people care for that issue.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. This doesn't bother/don't care attitude is what making people angry. If you care death of 4 people and don't even bother to care the death of innocent school kids, then there is some problem with people who claim to be peaceful and peace loving nation. Its called double standard and hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=sanju;308870]
There needs to be correction in your post. When Pakistanis terrorist attacked mumbai, world community blamed Pakistan and not the entire muslim community.
The problem is, the way muslim community responds to such world events, due to the sense of the guilt of their twisted belief system, they think that the world community is blaming every muslim, but that is actually not how the world community responded. Also, because of the urge to defend terror attacks by a terrorist, muslim community tends to justify terrorism and terrosit attacks. We saw many "educated" (HIGHLY SKILLED) members, who were apparently muslims, on this forum justifying terrorist attacks conducted by Pakistani terrorist who happen to be "muslims". Because, the overriding factor for a lot people following islamic faith is the religion of the person performing the bad deeds. And if that person happen to be a muslim, most of you guys tend to justify bad deeds including terrorist acts. This behavior results in world community responding to you in plain and simple terms that terrorist sympathizer is encouraging more terrorism and hence you perceive that expression as if the others are branding your entire community as terrorist, but again, this is not true either. Its the direct result of your sense of guilt and your urge to be terrorist sympathizer.
Exactly, its about how many people care about the issue. If terrorists kill innocent civilians, first thing they'll say is "Islamic Terrorism". Don't tell me media around the world didn't use this term. Anything and everything blamed on religion and people following the religion. But When you kill muslims in hundreds, you won't say even a single word.
Don't tell me members of this forum didn't blame muslims and their faith.
Its your twisted belief that all muslims support terrorism or they defend terrorists. Its your twisted belief fed by biased media and biased religious and political leaders. I won't blame you.
[QUOTE]
more...
house 2011 American Idol Season 10
nojoke
04-21 03:43 PM
I suggest you stop looking at national level figures if you are seeking accurate information. Look at the specific neighborhood you have mind and you may find that the situation there is not exactly what is shown on CNN.
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
The Dallas Morning News. �The housing downturn is hitting almost every neighborhood in the Dallas area. Even affluent close-in residential areas that had previously avoided declines, including the Park Cities and North Dallas, are seeing falling prices and significant drops in home sales.�
�And sales of high-end homes no matter where they are � until recently a bright spot � are sliding, too. Economists and other experts blame a large inventory of recently built speculative homes, higher interest rates for large mortgages and sellers who have not lowered unrealistically high prices.�
��We are definitely seeing a deterioration in sales across price ranges,� said D�Ann Petersen, business economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. �The high end did hold up quite well until recently.��
�Preowned home sales dropped 25 percent in the Park Cities. And prices were down 1 percent from a year ago � the first such decline in more than five years, according to North Texas Real Estate Information Systems.�
�In North Dallas, sales in the first quarter were down a staggering 40 percent. Prices were also off by 1 percent from a year ago. Median home sales prices dropped by 4 percent in Far North Dallas, and sales in that area fell by 26 percent.�
�Sales prices fell in almost two dozen of the 46 residential districts The Dallas Morning News tracks each quarter.�
�Even the most blue chip neighborhoods are having some problems. �I talked with a leading appraiser who said he was working on 16 or 17 foreclosures in Preston Hollow � they were all builders,� said longtime Dallas residential agent David Nichols. He said there are �plenty of buyers out there,� but with so much to look at, they are taking longer to decide on a house.�
�Sales of $1 million-plus homes fell by 19 percent in the first quarter in North Texas. The sharp decline follows several years of double-digit gains at the top of the local market. Sales of homes priced between $600,000 and $1 million fell by between 20 and 38 percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with the same period last year.�
��People who have a lot of money and are looking to buy the very expensive properties aren�t stupid with their money � they don�t like paying the higher cost and may be waiting for the market to respond,� Mr. Gaines said.�
�Veteran Dallas appraiser D.W. Skelton isn�t surprised to hear that the first-quarter preowned home sales statistics look a bit bleak. �We�ve seen it for a while,� he said. �The numbers are not as optimistic as some would lead you to believe.��
��Most of it is the result of builders running up values in some neighborhoods and now they have come down,� Mr. Skelton said. �It�s more a problem of price point � no matter what the location. They need to come off those prices. Their expectations were unrealistic because our market was so robust for so long.��
�All the publicity about so-called rescue plans to help troubled homeowners isn�t having an impact so far on Dallas-Fort Worth foreclosures. The number of homes facing foreclosure in the area next month is up almost 40 percent from a year ago.�
�Mr. Roddy said the number of D-FW foreclosure postings is the second-highest on record. �Back in February, we were over 5,000,� he said. �But the percentage gain this year is unbelievable when you consider that last year was unbelievable.��
�Almost 43,000 homes were posted for foreclosure here in 2007 � a record and up 10 percent from 2006. The number of home foreclosure postings has risen by 24 percent from the first five months of 2007.�
�He said he doesn�t expect to see much change in home foreclosures over the next 18 to 24 months.�
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
The Dallas Morning News. �The housing downturn is hitting almost every neighborhood in the Dallas area. Even affluent close-in residential areas that had previously avoided declines, including the Park Cities and North Dallas, are seeing falling prices and significant drops in home sales.�
�And sales of high-end homes no matter where they are � until recently a bright spot � are sliding, too. Economists and other experts blame a large inventory of recently built speculative homes, higher interest rates for large mortgages and sellers who have not lowered unrealistically high prices.�
��We are definitely seeing a deterioration in sales across price ranges,� said D�Ann Petersen, business economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. �The high end did hold up quite well until recently.��
�Preowned home sales dropped 25 percent in the Park Cities. And prices were down 1 percent from a year ago � the first such decline in more than five years, according to North Texas Real Estate Information Systems.�
�In North Dallas, sales in the first quarter were down a staggering 40 percent. Prices were also off by 1 percent from a year ago. Median home sales prices dropped by 4 percent in Far North Dallas, and sales in that area fell by 26 percent.�
�Sales prices fell in almost two dozen of the 46 residential districts The Dallas Morning News tracks each quarter.�
�Even the most blue chip neighborhoods are having some problems. �I talked with a leading appraiser who said he was working on 16 or 17 foreclosures in Preston Hollow � they were all builders,� said longtime Dallas residential agent David Nichols. He said there are �plenty of buyers out there,� but with so much to look at, they are taking longer to decide on a house.�
�Sales of $1 million-plus homes fell by 19 percent in the first quarter in North Texas. The sharp decline follows several years of double-digit gains at the top of the local market. Sales of homes priced between $600,000 and $1 million fell by between 20 and 38 percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with the same period last year.�
��People who have a lot of money and are looking to buy the very expensive properties aren�t stupid with their money � they don�t like paying the higher cost and may be waiting for the market to respond,� Mr. Gaines said.�
�Veteran Dallas appraiser D.W. Skelton isn�t surprised to hear that the first-quarter preowned home sales statistics look a bit bleak. �We�ve seen it for a while,� he said. �The numbers are not as optimistic as some would lead you to believe.��
��Most of it is the result of builders running up values in some neighborhoods and now they have come down,� Mr. Skelton said. �It�s more a problem of price point � no matter what the location. They need to come off those prices. Their expectations were unrealistic because our market was so robust for so long.��
�All the publicity about so-called rescue plans to help troubled homeowners isn�t having an impact so far on Dallas-Fort Worth foreclosures. The number of homes facing foreclosure in the area next month is up almost 40 percent from a year ago.�
�Mr. Roddy said the number of D-FW foreclosure postings is the second-highest on record. �Back in February, we were over 5,000,� he said. �But the percentage gain this year is unbelievable when you consider that last year was unbelievable.��
�Almost 43,000 homes were posted for foreclosure here in 2007 � a record and up 10 percent from 2006. The number of home foreclosure postings has risen by 24 percent from the first five months of 2007.�
�He said he doesn�t expect to see much change in home foreclosures over the next 18 to 24 months.�
tattoo American Idol (2011) Season 10
brshankar
08-05 10:27 PM
Rolling Flood,
There are only 3000 visas allocated to EB2 India category every year. If they didn't allow spill overs from EB1 to EB2 then the PD for EB2 India will be UNAVAILABLE just like EB3 India and EB3 India guys would not want to port to EB2 because it does not help them.
The main reason EB2 India is moving fast is because of the spill overs from other EB categories. OK I agree that EB2 India should get spillover visas from EB2 ROW but why should they get EB1 spillover visas? Is EB2 = EB1? Why can't they allocate the EB1 visas equally between EB2 and EB3. See it is the law that allows for visas to spillover from EB1 to EB2 and then to EB3. Same way it is the law that allows for EB3 to port to EB2.
Please dont make this a big deal. Nothing is perfect, we can find fault in everything.
To my fellow IV members,
Lets not fight. We need each other to win this battle. Lets win it together.
Thanks
There are only 3000 visas allocated to EB2 India category every year. If they didn't allow spill overs from EB1 to EB2 then the PD for EB2 India will be UNAVAILABLE just like EB3 India and EB3 India guys would not want to port to EB2 because it does not help them.
The main reason EB2 India is moving fast is because of the spill overs from other EB categories. OK I agree that EB2 India should get spillover visas from EB2 ROW but why should they get EB1 spillover visas? Is EB2 = EB1? Why can't they allocate the EB1 visas equally between EB2 and EB3. See it is the law that allows for visas to spillover from EB1 to EB2 and then to EB3. Same way it is the law that allows for EB3 to port to EB2.
Please dont make this a big deal. Nothing is perfect, we can find fault in everything.
To my fellow IV members,
Lets not fight. We need each other to win this battle. Lets win it together.
Thanks
more...
pictures AMERICAN IDOL 2011 FINAL 3 FUN
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
dresses Jennifer Lopez quot;American Idolquot;
svn
03-31 07:27 PM
USCIS seems to be making a coordinated attempt to preadjudicate in order to avoid future backlogs (to achieve their metrics on processing times). See thread on Processing Time Targets they have set for themselves: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24747
more...
makeup Tags: american idol, fox,
redgreen
08-05 10:03 AM
Many are supporting 'porting'. Then why are they opposing 'substitution'??
The original poster never said that an EB3 should not apply for EB2. But after a few years when they can apply in EB2 they should not be considered they were already in EB2 all those years! There is no logic in it. I understand the frustration of everybody who is waiting for GC for several years. But laws should be based on some logic. Consider people who didn't apply for GC for years even though they were eligible! Are you people saying that they should get priority over people who applied??
The original poster never said that an EB3 should not apply for EB2. But after a few years when they can apply in EB2 they should not be considered they were already in EB2 all those years! There is no logic in it. I understand the frustration of everybody who is waiting for GC for several years. But laws should be based on some logic. Consider people who didn't apply for GC for years even though they were eligible! Are you people saying that they should get priority over people who applied??
girlfriend American Idol 2011 Season 10
manub
07-07 07:45 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
hairstyles in American Idol history.
RaviG
07-14 08:42 PM
The way it is working for EB2, it is going to work exactly for EB3.
If this is the case.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
If this is the case.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
number30
03-26 04:48 PM
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
Macaca
05-18 05:23 PM
Although some of the dissidents were arrested for their involvement with social media, those outlets also have served as a balm, as families facing repression from the government try to contact the outside world. When human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong was arrested in February, his wife, Jin Bianling, opened a Twitter account to record her efforts to get information as to his whereabouts, counting the days of his detention online to a crowd of several thousand followers. (Jiang returned home two weeks ago, but is under surveillance, and the couple declined requests for press interviews to keep a low profile.)
Twitter isn't a medium known for its depth of emotion, but it was undeniably heart-rending when Jin described a conversation with her 8-year-old daughter one evening not long after Jiang's arrest. "Mommy," Jin recorded the child saying. "We shouldn't think about daddy much. You told me when I sneeze, it is a sign that someone is thinking about me. If we make daddy sneeze where he is now, he might be in even more pain."
What Next for Ai Weiwei? (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/18/what-next-for-ai-weiwei/) By Jason Miks | The Diplomat
Rebuilding a United Front on China Rights
The U.S. and European Union can push for human rights protections in China if they work together again. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576328831096040732.html)
By KELLEY CURRIE | Wall Street Journal
The rebel who suffers for art: Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/plumage/entry/the-rebel-who-suffers-for-art-ai-weiwei) By Uma Nair | Times of India
Inside China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/11/inside-china-819473755/) By Miles Yu | The Washington Times
Twitter isn't a medium known for its depth of emotion, but it was undeniably heart-rending when Jin described a conversation with her 8-year-old daughter one evening not long after Jiang's arrest. "Mommy," Jin recorded the child saying. "We shouldn't think about daddy much. You told me when I sneeze, it is a sign that someone is thinking about me. If we make daddy sneeze where he is now, he might be in even more pain."
What Next for Ai Weiwei? (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/18/what-next-for-ai-weiwei/) By Jason Miks | The Diplomat
Rebuilding a United Front on China Rights
The U.S. and European Union can push for human rights protections in China if they work together again. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576328831096040732.html)
By KELLEY CURRIE | Wall Street Journal
The rebel who suffers for art: Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/plumage/entry/the-rebel-who-suffers-for-art-ai-weiwei) By Uma Nair | Times of India
Inside China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/11/inside-china-819473755/) By Miles Yu | The Washington Times
No comments:
Post a Comment