ssa
06-25 03:41 PM
Do you know a single well known rich guy that still rents (and owns zero real estate)? If you are so sure that you have the math right, go ahead and name some names!
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
wallpaper alwaysthis page graphics,
malaGCPahije
08-07 01:40 PM
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
nk2006
03-24 12:53 PM
Do you guys look around at all of immigration.
EB people are generally the only non immigrant to immigratn class of people who are allowed to stay in USA while they wait for greencard.
Almost all others have to wait outside USA for many years and cannot take benefit of what this country has to offer.
You are wrong - many other categories are allowed to be adjusted to the status while being in the country. For example look into latest CSR report - you will know that in year 2007, USCIS adjusted 621,047 foreign nationals to LPR status among this number EB's are only around 160K remaining or in other statuses.
You could be a phillipino brother/sister of US citizen and wait 23 years to get your number called.
You could be here from Liberia as temporary resident for the last 20 years and have to keep getting extensions for temporary status and one day it gets taken away from you.
Sorry to tell you but the way you guys define pain is not pain when it comes to most immigration matters when compares overall.
The family based immigration is important and can be very painful for some cases - like spouses and sons/daughters - and that is why congress has correctly amended laws to make these cases as exceptions (there are no numerical limits and also no country quotas). That was a correct thing to do and any wait in those relationships is much more painful. But for other categories in the family based immigration - like the cases you gave as examples (like brother and sister of a US citizen) - I dont really consider them as more painful than ours actually I dont even consider them as even comparable to ours. I dont know your case, but I came to US in late nineties with couple graduage degrees and acquired one more here - started my career here and justifiably feel that I considerably contributed to success of atleast one company which grew to 200+ people at one point. I emotionally and careerwise invested here. Now after 10+ years still no greencard and know how many career moves I had to let go becuase of this. While the decision to pursue the greencard is mine and I am not trying to blame anyone here, I dont think that our pain is less than someone who is "waiting" because his brother or sister sponsored him/her doesnt make sense (note: well I do have brother and sister and cherish those relationships but expecting a lifelong/career move based on their location of living is not there; and even if there is an expectation I wont consider that even comparable to someone living there and letting go many opportunities despite of talent just because of administrative issues).
You are right - things are getting worse - there may not be any congressional activity on this issue for sometime and if USCIS try to screw us in other ways - then its going to be a rough ride. But the EB community activism (congressional or otherwise) will actually help in at least staying things more fair towards us.
EB people are generally the only non immigrant to immigratn class of people who are allowed to stay in USA while they wait for greencard.
Almost all others have to wait outside USA for many years and cannot take benefit of what this country has to offer.
You are wrong - many other categories are allowed to be adjusted to the status while being in the country. For example look into latest CSR report - you will know that in year 2007, USCIS adjusted 621,047 foreign nationals to LPR status among this number EB's are only around 160K remaining or in other statuses.
You could be a phillipino brother/sister of US citizen and wait 23 years to get your number called.
You could be here from Liberia as temporary resident for the last 20 years and have to keep getting extensions for temporary status and one day it gets taken away from you.
Sorry to tell you but the way you guys define pain is not pain when it comes to most immigration matters when compares overall.
The family based immigration is important and can be very painful for some cases - like spouses and sons/daughters - and that is why congress has correctly amended laws to make these cases as exceptions (there are no numerical limits and also no country quotas). That was a correct thing to do and any wait in those relationships is much more painful. But for other categories in the family based immigration - like the cases you gave as examples (like brother and sister of a US citizen) - I dont really consider them as more painful than ours actually I dont even consider them as even comparable to ours. I dont know your case, but I came to US in late nineties with couple graduage degrees and acquired one more here - started my career here and justifiably feel that I considerably contributed to success of atleast one company which grew to 200+ people at one point. I emotionally and careerwise invested here. Now after 10+ years still no greencard and know how many career moves I had to let go becuase of this. While the decision to pursue the greencard is mine and I am not trying to blame anyone here, I dont think that our pain is less than someone who is "waiting" because his brother or sister sponsored him/her doesnt make sense (note: well I do have brother and sister and cherish those relationships but expecting a lifelong/career move based on their location of living is not there; and even if there is an expectation I wont consider that even comparable to someone living there and letting go many opportunities despite of talent just because of administrative issues).
You are right - things are getting worse - there may not be any congressional activity on this issue for sometime and if USCIS try to screw us in other ways - then its going to be a rough ride. But the EB community activism (congressional or otherwise) will actually help in at least staying things more fair towards us.
2011 cute sayings and quotes trial
BharatPremi
03-28 03:55 PM
Thanks for explaining the terms. You can go over 80% on the first loan but the lender will ask for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance). Which is around 1% of the loan. To skirt around it, mortgage brokers break up the loan into first and second(80%+10%+10% down). This avoids the PMI and helps the buyer qualify for a bigger loan/house. Also PMI premiums are not tax-deductible.
correct.
correct.
more...
unitednations
03-25 12:35 PM
Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
waitnwatch
08-05 03:13 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
more...
DSLStart
03-23 10:08 PM
Man!!! thats getting nastier..
Best bet for you is to hire an attorney to come out of this trap.
Good luck!
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Best bet for you is to hire an attorney to come out of this trap.
Good luck!
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
2010 cute sayings and quotes wwwtom
485Mbe4001
10-01 01:23 PM
For the record the raising of the FDIC limit was proposed by House Minority Whip Roy Blunt and not Obama. One article spinned it to show that Obama proposed it and then that news got the most clicks and now everyone says that he proposed the limit.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
After the bail-out bill failed in the House, Obama immediately posted a response reassuring Americans and investors that the leaders will come up with another soon.
Contrast this with McCains partisan blaming of Obama for failure of bailout, while it was him that pulled the stunt of rushing to Washington to 'rescue' the bailout. After failing to show the leadership of his own party -with majority of Repubs voting against the bailout (a clear indication of leadership failure and ineffectiveness of McCain Presidency in passing anything through his own party!), he found it convenient to Obama.
And it was Obama who proposed raising FDIC insurance to $250,000 to which McCain has (thankfully) chimed in.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-22 02:59 PM
A university committee was selecting a new dean.
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
hair Attitude Quotes Graphics
vikramark
10-06 11:45 AM
Hello Guys,
I am a bit confused, I always thought or heard (John Kerry, last Presidential debate) Democratic (Most of them) candidates pro to legal immigrants who have been here from last 5-7 yrs, regularly paying taxes and have not broken any law, there can be few exceptions but over all above democratic strategy have been to support immigrants who meet above three criteria.
What am I missing?
Thanks
I am a bit confused, I always thought or heard (John Kerry, last Presidential debate) Democratic (Most of them) candidates pro to legal immigrants who have been here from last 5-7 yrs, regularly paying taxes and have not broken any law, there can be few exceptions but over all above democratic strategy have been to support immigrants who meet above three criteria.
What am I missing?
Thanks
more...
lvgc
07-14 01:29 PM
Table 6 at
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
hot cute myspace quotes
sledge_hammer
06-25 04:03 PM
You are wrong my friend. Not all rich people pay cash for their homes. Read this - Celebrity Foreclosures - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/02/gotti-canseco-dykstra-foreclosures-business-celebrities.html)
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
more...
house images/10/with-love-quotes
Macaca
12-30 07:04 PM
India expects quick solution to Iran payments issue (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53843720101230) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
tattoo Tags: cute Missing You Quotes,
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
more...
pictures cute and funny quotes
senthil1
05-16 11:40 AM
My view is not based on my personal gain or loss. My view is even if they ban consulting H1b numbers will not be reduced so much and cap will be reached. Number of permanent jobs will increase and they will hire H1b only when there is real shortage. Why do you think IEEE-USA members are undeserving and lazy just because they are interesting to put restrictions in H1b? Infact they are interested in more green cards. We are appreciating. Just because they are pointing out some problems in the program we cannot brand them as anti immigrants or lazy people. We ourself know that there are some issues in the program. While we were studying in the college it was big achivement if our research article comes into IEEE. So IEEE is considered as one of world best academic association.
It is not TCS,Infy,Wipro is causing delay to GC. Infact I worked one of those companies and still they are one of best in India. Still I may work those companies if I go to India.
If there is real shortage of skilled people then we will pass all the tests which are given in Durbin proposal and we can get H1b. What is the problem in accepting? Infact I am not supporting Ban of H1b on consulting but other than that everything can be fine and easily passed by most of H1b persons. Anyhow it is my personal view and IV view is different. As a pro immigrant organization we cannot support any anti immigrant bill.
oh really!!! Your argument is exactly the same arguments used by lazy and undeserving members of IEEE-USA who simply want to eliminate their competition from the younger and more dynamic engineers from the other parts of the world. They also think that if H-1B folks will not come they will get all the jobs and their rate will go from $100/hr to $200/hr. You seem to think that Durbin-Grassley bill will create more permanent jobs for you. Why is there such a strange similarity between yours and IEEE-USA's thinking?
Companies will survive and they are good with that. Let’s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
Again, strangely enough, your views are identical to the views of IEEE-USA. The fact is, "more money" will be there for very small time. And then jobs will be outsourced to the person who would have come here to do the same job. In the final analysis, Durbin-Grassley bill only delays the demand and supply meeting each other for couple of months. But in the new setup, Durbin-Grassley bill is making sure that the job is outsourced for ever. True, before the job is outsourced, there will be "more money" and "more jobs" for small window of time. But then, it will be NO job till eternity. Its like, you can either be satisfied with the golden egg each week or you could choose to kill the hen that gives you the golden egg.
You will then join a permanent job and whine about someone laughing at you when you pass though the hall-way or not looking at you in the meetings when you are talking. So the bottom line is, there will then be different kind of abuse and exploitation. What will you do then? Maybe you could go to Durbin-Grassley again after a year and ask them to pass another bill to protect us from the "abusive" way someone laughs when you walk though the hall-way. I am sure IEEE-USA will help to promote a bill to protect ALL of us from such an "abuse".
It is not TCS,Infy,Wipro is causing delay to GC. Infact I worked one of those companies and still they are one of best in India. Still I may work those companies if I go to India.
If there is real shortage of skilled people then we will pass all the tests which are given in Durbin proposal and we can get H1b. What is the problem in accepting? Infact I am not supporting Ban of H1b on consulting but other than that everything can be fine and easily passed by most of H1b persons. Anyhow it is my personal view and IV view is different. As a pro immigrant organization we cannot support any anti immigrant bill.
oh really!!! Your argument is exactly the same arguments used by lazy and undeserving members of IEEE-USA who simply want to eliminate their competition from the younger and more dynamic engineers from the other parts of the world. They also think that if H-1B folks will not come they will get all the jobs and their rate will go from $100/hr to $200/hr. You seem to think that Durbin-Grassley bill will create more permanent jobs for you. Why is there such a strange similarity between yours and IEEE-USA's thinking?
Companies will survive and they are good with that. Let’s worry about our survival rather than the survival of TCS, Infy etc.
Again, strangely enough, your views are identical to the views of IEEE-USA. The fact is, "more money" will be there for very small time. And then jobs will be outsourced to the person who would have come here to do the same job. In the final analysis, Durbin-Grassley bill only delays the demand and supply meeting each other for couple of months. But in the new setup, Durbin-Grassley bill is making sure that the job is outsourced for ever. True, before the job is outsourced, there will be "more money" and "more jobs" for small window of time. But then, it will be NO job till eternity. Its like, you can either be satisfied with the golden egg each week or you could choose to kill the hen that gives you the golden egg.
You will then join a permanent job and whine about someone laughing at you when you pass though the hall-way or not looking at you in the meetings when you are talking. So the bottom line is, there will then be different kind of abuse and exploitation. What will you do then? Maybe you could go to Durbin-Grassley again after a year and ask them to pass another bill to protect us from the "abusive" way someone laughs when you walk though the hall-way. I am sure IEEE-USA will help to promote a bill to protect ALL of us from such an "abuse".
dresses the cute ex boyfriend she
Macaca
09-29 04:06 PM
A Day in the Life: Restaurateurs Hit the Hill (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_34/news/20220-1.html) By Anna Palmer | ROLL CALL, September 27, 2007
Like hundreds of Washington, D.C., trade associations that shuttle their members to town every year for a bit of precious face time with lawmakers and staff, the National Restaurant Association has its once-a-year shot at putting a live face on its most pressing concerns.
On Wednesday, the NRA was ready. Its 700 delegates, who had spent the day before at the Grand Hyatt prepping their talking points, fanned out over the Capitol for 332 meetings, including some 284 lawmakers.
That may seem like an extraordinary show of force. But restaurant owners, like real estate agents and bankers and even florists, all share something in common: a powerful membership presence in every Congressional district.
Still, the results of the day, like many constituent experiences, were decidedly mixed, as the restaurateurs touched on some of Congress' most sensitive subjects: comprehensive immigration reform, food safety and lowering the number of years it takes to depreciate their buildings.
Members arrived by state associations and tended to concentrate on their state delegations.
For the Pennsylvania group, 8 a.m. Wednesday was go time. With 20 restaurateurs swarming the Capitol, they were meeting once again with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whom they see as an ally on immigration reform, and freshman Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a first for many of them. That's in addition to 14 of the 19 Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.
Arming themselves with the facts that restaurants are the second-largest private-sector employer, the 2,100-member association wanted answers, mainly about immigration and what Congress is going to do.
As the lobbyists mingled outside Casey's office, for many it was a time to reacquaint themselves with old friends and competitors. Most were loose; they weren't novices on Capitol Hill. They've been here before and were ready to get right to the point.
Led by state President James Flanigan, an intense, impeccably dressed man who has spent his entire career in the food service industry, the group was realistic about their role in national politics.
"The NRA is like the NFL. [The state restaurant associations] are all the backups of the NFL," said Joseph DiSalvo, owner of DiSalvo's Station Restaurant and incoming president of the state association, as they waited in the hallway to meet with Casey.
But while lobbying here is important, the Pennsylvania association, which is headquartered in in the state capital, Harrisburg, sees its role as more intimately involved in state-level politicking than federal.
"Our mission is Harrisburg," said Flanigan. "They can do a lot more damage to us."
Currently, for example, the city of Philadelphia is deciding whether to require trans-fat labeling on menus, which Flanigan describes as "feel-good legislation" that doesn't really work, and Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, which is considering a 10 percent drink tax.
"More and more issues are driven down from the federal to the state and now the local level" Patrick Conway, the state association's top staffer, said.
The group also is dealing with a proposed statewide smoking ban, which it favors. But, the restaurant industry hit a roadblock earlier this year after the tavern association and casinos lobbied heavily for exemptions.
"My own opinion is I hate the government telling me what to do," said Flanigan, of the smoking ban. "But exemptions put us at a competitive disadvantage. It's the old story of leveling the playing field."
After filing into the office adjacent to Casey's main entrance in the Russell building, the group settled in around a long boardroom table, with others perched around the walls.
But there's no Casey. Instead, the lobbyists had to make due with a staffer who works on many of the issues, including immigration reform.
The group has been prepped by lobbyists from the D.C. office of the National Restaurant Association to stay on their talking points: immigration reform, food safety and the restaurant depreciation tax.
"For immigration the primary goal is to express our frustration with the inability of Congress to tackle this obviously significant issue," said Brendan Flanagan, the NRA's vice president of federal relations, in an interview.
Bill Baker, an NRA board member and Pennsylvania restaurateur, led off the discussion, pointing to how comprehensive immigration reform is important not only to their bottom line, but also in making sure employers are on the right side of the law.
He followed up with horror stories of under-staffed restaurants that can only seat half the restaurant because there aren't enough workers.
Baker's frustration is echoed by fellow association members, including Michael Passalacqua, former state association president and owner of Angelo's Italian restaurant in Washington, Pa.
"We are not document experts," Passalacqua said. "The only way the restaurant industry is going to be staffed is a matter of stealing each other's employees."
With just minutes left before the staffer had to exit for another meeting, the delegates had little time to address food safety and depreciation.
As the lobbyists left Casey's office, many are frustrated about not getting more specific answers about when immigration reform is going to happen. But, they held out hope for Specter, whom they see as a real advocate on immigration reform.
After trucking to the Hart Senate Office Building, the delegation was led into Specter's office for the much-anticipated meeting. For many of the delegates who have been attending the national conference for many years, it wasn't the first time they've met with the Senator.
Less than 10 minutes after Specter joined them, they exited the meeting and frustration from some of the members mounted.
Even Conway, the state association chief executive who so far has kept a stiff upper lip all morning helping coordinate the delegates and keep everyone on message, diplomatically explained that Specter "didn't have much time."
But with the meeting so short, and no one from the delegation given the opportunity to ask a single question, others are slightly more frazzled.
"The time frame was just so small, we couldn't get any information. I'm disappointed because I had a lot questions. There's no time with only 10 minutes," Passalacqua said.
Like hundreds of Washington, D.C., trade associations that shuttle their members to town every year for a bit of precious face time with lawmakers and staff, the National Restaurant Association has its once-a-year shot at putting a live face on its most pressing concerns.
On Wednesday, the NRA was ready. Its 700 delegates, who had spent the day before at the Grand Hyatt prepping their talking points, fanned out over the Capitol for 332 meetings, including some 284 lawmakers.
That may seem like an extraordinary show of force. But restaurant owners, like real estate agents and bankers and even florists, all share something in common: a powerful membership presence in every Congressional district.
Still, the results of the day, like many constituent experiences, were decidedly mixed, as the restaurateurs touched on some of Congress' most sensitive subjects: comprehensive immigration reform, food safety and lowering the number of years it takes to depreciate their buildings.
Members arrived by state associations and tended to concentrate on their state delegations.
For the Pennsylvania group, 8 a.m. Wednesday was go time. With 20 restaurateurs swarming the Capitol, they were meeting once again with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whom they see as an ally on immigration reform, and freshman Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a first for many of them. That's in addition to 14 of the 19 Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.
Arming themselves with the facts that restaurants are the second-largest private-sector employer, the 2,100-member association wanted answers, mainly about immigration and what Congress is going to do.
As the lobbyists mingled outside Casey's office, for many it was a time to reacquaint themselves with old friends and competitors. Most were loose; they weren't novices on Capitol Hill. They've been here before and were ready to get right to the point.
Led by state President James Flanigan, an intense, impeccably dressed man who has spent his entire career in the food service industry, the group was realistic about their role in national politics.
"The NRA is like the NFL. [The state restaurant associations] are all the backups of the NFL," said Joseph DiSalvo, owner of DiSalvo's Station Restaurant and incoming president of the state association, as they waited in the hallway to meet with Casey.
But while lobbying here is important, the Pennsylvania association, which is headquartered in in the state capital, Harrisburg, sees its role as more intimately involved in state-level politicking than federal.
"Our mission is Harrisburg," said Flanigan. "They can do a lot more damage to us."
Currently, for example, the city of Philadelphia is deciding whether to require trans-fat labeling on menus, which Flanigan describes as "feel-good legislation" that doesn't really work, and Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, which is considering a 10 percent drink tax.
"More and more issues are driven down from the federal to the state and now the local level" Patrick Conway, the state association's top staffer, said.
The group also is dealing with a proposed statewide smoking ban, which it favors. But, the restaurant industry hit a roadblock earlier this year after the tavern association and casinos lobbied heavily for exemptions.
"My own opinion is I hate the government telling me what to do," said Flanigan, of the smoking ban. "But exemptions put us at a competitive disadvantage. It's the old story of leveling the playing field."
After filing into the office adjacent to Casey's main entrance in the Russell building, the group settled in around a long boardroom table, with others perched around the walls.
But there's no Casey. Instead, the lobbyists had to make due with a staffer who works on many of the issues, including immigration reform.
The group has been prepped by lobbyists from the D.C. office of the National Restaurant Association to stay on their talking points: immigration reform, food safety and the restaurant depreciation tax.
"For immigration the primary goal is to express our frustration with the inability of Congress to tackle this obviously significant issue," said Brendan Flanagan, the NRA's vice president of federal relations, in an interview.
Bill Baker, an NRA board member and Pennsylvania restaurateur, led off the discussion, pointing to how comprehensive immigration reform is important not only to their bottom line, but also in making sure employers are on the right side of the law.
He followed up with horror stories of under-staffed restaurants that can only seat half the restaurant because there aren't enough workers.
Baker's frustration is echoed by fellow association members, including Michael Passalacqua, former state association president and owner of Angelo's Italian restaurant in Washington, Pa.
"We are not document experts," Passalacqua said. "The only way the restaurant industry is going to be staffed is a matter of stealing each other's employees."
With just minutes left before the staffer had to exit for another meeting, the delegates had little time to address food safety and depreciation.
As the lobbyists left Casey's office, many are frustrated about not getting more specific answers about when immigration reform is going to happen. But, they held out hope for Specter, whom they see as a real advocate on immigration reform.
After trucking to the Hart Senate Office Building, the delegation was led into Specter's office for the much-anticipated meeting. For many of the delegates who have been attending the national conference for many years, it wasn't the first time they've met with the Senator.
Less than 10 minutes after Specter joined them, they exited the meeting and frustration from some of the members mounted.
Even Conway, the state association chief executive who so far has kept a stiff upper lip all morning helping coordinate the delegates and keep everyone on message, diplomatically explained that Specter "didn't have much time."
But with the meeting so short, and no one from the delegation given the opportunity to ask a single question, others are slightly more frazzled.
"The time frame was just so small, we couldn't get any information. I'm disappointed because I had a lot questions. There's no time with only 10 minutes," Passalacqua said.
more...
makeup Cute quotes, graphics, surveys
Macaca
12-20 08:01 AM
Congress's Mixed Results (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902030.html) Democratic promises meet legislative reality, Dec 20, 2007
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
girlfriend Friendship Quotes: Best Images
NKR
04-14 03:37 PM
Where do you get the idea that the child will loose the life in apartments and then get back after buying a house?:confused:
Unfortunately time will never move in reverse and will move in just one direction. A childhood gone is gone. It will never come back. We all want good things for our kids. My perception of good thing is different from yours. If my kid says that he wants to live in an apartment I will move to an apartment, that�s a given.
It would be nice if we can buy the house on the day one when we join the job. Or even nicer if our parents got us a house in US before we came here:D.
Unfortunately there are circumstances that prevent us buying a house. The biggest one is this bubble and the madness of multiple bidding that insanely pushed the real estate prices, all the while the realtors and mortgage brokers where making 300K or 500K yearly income selling shoe boxes for half a million and generating slogans like "you will be priced out forever", "they are not manufacturing any more land", "housing is always a good investment", "renting is throwing away money".
Agreed. The decision to buy rests on an individual and to his/her situation, no one wants to buy when things are not conducive.
Unfortunately time will never move in reverse and will move in just one direction. A childhood gone is gone. It will never come back. We all want good things for our kids. My perception of good thing is different from yours. If my kid says that he wants to live in an apartment I will move to an apartment, that�s a given.
It would be nice if we can buy the house on the day one when we join the job. Or even nicer if our parents got us a house in US before we came here:D.
Unfortunately there are circumstances that prevent us buying a house. The biggest one is this bubble and the madness of multiple bidding that insanely pushed the real estate prices, all the while the realtors and mortgage brokers where making 300K or 500K yearly income selling shoe boxes for half a million and generating slogans like "you will be priced out forever", "they are not manufacturing any more land", "housing is always a good investment", "renting is throwing away money".
Agreed. The decision to buy rests on an individual and to his/her situation, no one wants to buy when things are not conducive.
hairstyles Cute Friendship Quotes and
xyzgc
12-30 02:23 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
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.
Gravitation
03-25 04:20 PM
www.realtytrac.com (http://www.realtytrac.com) will give you a list. But its $40.month. I heard you can get some stale info.
Go to biggerpockets.com Its like IV forum. It will give all the info on how to learn, swim and survive in real estate ocean.
BiggerPockets.com looks like a nice website. It's for real estate investors. I just signed up on this web-site as I'm closing on a 4-family house next month. Another good site for real estate investors is mrlandlord.com. Though I don't think there are many investors here.
Go to biggerpockets.com Its like IV forum. It will give all the info on how to learn, swim and survive in real estate ocean.
BiggerPockets.com looks like a nice website. It's for real estate investors. I just signed up on this web-site as I'm closing on a 4-family house next month. Another good site for real estate investors is mrlandlord.com. Though I don't think there are many investors here.
No comments:
Post a Comment