Macaca
03-06 09:04 PM
The Top 200 H-1B Employers Of 2006 (http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/15273) By Brad Reese | Network World, 05/17/2007
Page 12 & 31 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Top 19 Employers of New H-1Bs Petitions Approved in FY 2006
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
MICROSOFT CORP. 1,297
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
I-FLEX SOLUTIONS INC. 695
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 624
TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. 614
INTEL CORP. 613
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB INDIA LTD. 497
MPHASIS CORP. 445
SYNTEL CONSULTING INC. 415
ERNST & YOUNG LLP 396
LANCESOFT INC. 394
Other 88,070 (80.3 percent)
TOTAL 109,614 (0.07 % of U.S. labor force)
Source: USCIS
Explanatory note from USCIS: Employers were identified and counted on the basis of tax ID.
The number of approved petitions for new workers is not identical with the number of workers on the job because
workers are occasionally sponsored by more than one employer,
the job offer may subsequently be withdrawn,
the job offer may be declined, or
the worker if residing outside the country, may be denied a visa.
The total of 109,614 exceeds 65,000 regular plus 20,000 masters caps because it includes petitions for new workers exempted from the caps.
Fiscal year of petition approval often is earlier than fiscal year of worker start date. For example, about 50,000 H-1B petitions were approved in FY 2006 for a start date in FY 2007. The reason is that many petitions were filed in April beginning of cap season) and May by sponsors for workers beginning their employment in October---two different fiscal years.
The same phenomenon occurred this year, offsetting last year's effect to an unknown extent, but rendering straight comparisons between petition approvals and employment starts in a fiscal year subject to error and misinterpretation.
The CIA Fact Book estimates the size of the U.S. labor force in 2006 at 151.4 million.
The list in the table is for individuals who were hired on an approved H-1B petition for “initial employment” in 2006. Petitions approved for “continuing employment” would include both H-1B renewals by that same employer and individuals who had been working on H-1B status for another employer.
Pages 11-12
Critics charge that “most” H-1B visas are used by companies that engage in “outsourcing.” The 10 companies cited in these reports are Infosys Technologies, Wipro Technologies, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Patni Computer Systems, Mphasis, HCL America, Deloitte & Touche, Tata Consultancy Services, Accenture and Satyam Computer Services.
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
MPHASIS CORP. 445
Total 14,768
The 10 companies cited most by critics used less than 14 percent of new H-1B petitions approved in 2006 for initial employment (new hires who were not in H-1B status for a prior employer), according to USCIS.
The new H-1B professionals hired in 2006 by these global companies totaled fewer than 15,000, representing less than 4 percent of the approximately 440,000 people employed by these 10 companies worldwide.
It would be difficult to claim such a small number and proportion of employees are leading to the loss of a large number of American jobs, particularly within the context of a U.S. economy producing employment for over 145 million people. In fact, it is not clear it is leading to the loss of any American jobs.
The vast majority of H-1B visas go to U.S. high tech companies, financial institutions and U.S. universities.
Senators Grassley and Durbin wrote a letter to the companies on this list with headquarters in India.
Crackdown on Indian Outsourcing Firms (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2007/db20070515_218119.htm?chan=search) Two senators are probing how Indian outsourcing firms use U.S. work visas, with an eye on new restrictions by Peter Elstrom | Business Week, May 15, 2007
Lawmakers ask foreign firms for work visa data (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63251&postcount=896) By Donna Smith, Reuters, Monday, May 14, 2007
Senators questioning tech company use of H1-B visa program (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63122&postcount=892) By Suzanne Gamboa | Associated Press, 05/14/2007
Page 12 & 31 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Top 19 Employers of New H-1Bs Petitions Approved in FY 2006
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
MICROSOFT CORP. 1,297
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
I-FLEX SOLUTIONS INC. 695
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 624
TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. 614
INTEL CORP. 613
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB INDIA LTD. 497
MPHASIS CORP. 445
SYNTEL CONSULTING INC. 415
ERNST & YOUNG LLP 396
LANCESOFT INC. 394
Other 88,070 (80.3 percent)
TOTAL 109,614 (0.07 % of U.S. labor force)
Source: USCIS
Explanatory note from USCIS: Employers were identified and counted on the basis of tax ID.
The number of approved petitions for new workers is not identical with the number of workers on the job because
workers are occasionally sponsored by more than one employer,
the job offer may subsequently be withdrawn,
the job offer may be declined, or
the worker if residing outside the country, may be denied a visa.
The total of 109,614 exceeds 65,000 regular plus 20,000 masters caps because it includes petitions for new workers exempted from the caps.
Fiscal year of petition approval often is earlier than fiscal year of worker start date. For example, about 50,000 H-1B petitions were approved in FY 2006 for a start date in FY 2007. The reason is that many petitions were filed in April beginning of cap season) and May by sponsors for workers beginning their employment in October---two different fiscal years.
The same phenomenon occurred this year, offsetting last year's effect to an unknown extent, but rendering straight comparisons between petition approvals and employment starts in a fiscal year subject to error and misinterpretation.
The CIA Fact Book estimates the size of the U.S. labor force in 2006 at 151.4 million.
The list in the table is for individuals who were hired on an approved H-1B petition for “initial employment” in 2006. Petitions approved for “continuing employment” would include both H-1B renewals by that same employer and individuals who had been working on H-1B status for another employer.
Pages 11-12
Critics charge that “most” H-1B visas are used by companies that engage in “outsourcing.” The 10 companies cited in these reports are Infosys Technologies, Wipro Technologies, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Patni Computer Systems, Mphasis, HCL America, Deloitte & Touche, Tata Consultancy Services, Accenture and Satyam Computer Services.
WIPRO LTD. 3,143
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 3,125
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2,754
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. 1,753
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. 969
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS U.S. 863
HCL AMERICA INC. 652
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 545
ACCENTURE LLP 519
MPHASIS CORP. 445
Total 14,768
The 10 companies cited most by critics used less than 14 percent of new H-1B petitions approved in 2006 for initial employment (new hires who were not in H-1B status for a prior employer), according to USCIS.
The new H-1B professionals hired in 2006 by these global companies totaled fewer than 15,000, representing less than 4 percent of the approximately 440,000 people employed by these 10 companies worldwide.
It would be difficult to claim such a small number and proportion of employees are leading to the loss of a large number of American jobs, particularly within the context of a U.S. economy producing employment for over 145 million people. In fact, it is not clear it is leading to the loss of any American jobs.
The vast majority of H-1B visas go to U.S. high tech companies, financial institutions and U.S. universities.
Senators Grassley and Durbin wrote a letter to the companies on this list with headquarters in India.
Crackdown on Indian Outsourcing Firms (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2007/db20070515_218119.htm?chan=search) Two senators are probing how Indian outsourcing firms use U.S. work visas, with an eye on new restrictions by Peter Elstrom | Business Week, May 15, 2007
Lawmakers ask foreign firms for work visa data (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63251&postcount=896) By Donna Smith, Reuters, Monday, May 14, 2007
Senators questioning tech company use of H1-B visa program (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63122&postcount=892) By Suzanne Gamboa | Associated Press, 05/14/2007
wallpaper I have had my elly utton
pmpforgc
04-14 10:35 AM
Atleast you are being honest and telling that the price now is somewhere around 350K. also the main point is that you bought it in 2004 so you are somewhat lucky. the situation now is such that prices are still very high in the correct location. I will give my example ..if I buy a house now ... for the good deals ..I have to buy one which is 14 miles away from work and another 22 miles away from city / airport (atlanta). and ofcourse if I buy at so far away it will not appreciate for another 10 years (many places have single roads ..and atlanta traffic is famous). there is still a bubble at better locations ..as sellers / builders are not lowering enough ..lots of for sale signs though.
now by renting ..I am closer to work / family ..so atleast 250 $ saved in gas plus vehicle maintenance ..add another 300 in maint + hoa for new house plu 300 - 400 in prop tax etc. with this money itself --I get good deals on renting a townhome with good apartment companies (hence no HOA).
so renting is not throwing money away ..you get a place to stay (with no maintenance) ..maybe smaller in size ..so you need to ask another question ,...do I need extra space (And maintenance ..) ..before you decide to buy especially now.
Hi
I am moving to Atlanta (Meritta) soon. I got new job there.
I need some advise regarding housing situation in regards to buying home. Currently I dont own home. I went to buy home last spring at my current location ( south carolina) but luckily I didnt buy it as some one advised me not to proceed unless I plan to stay for atleast five years. So that was good for me.
Any way what are the good developing suburbun areas where we have good schools and property prices are reasonable in atlanta area?
What is the trend of house price in atlanta area?
Also regarding renting apratments, my son is in high school and I will be working in the Meritta area. I was looking for highshools and I found that Walton highschool, Pope Highschool and Roswell Highschools may be good choices nearby.
Let me know your experiences in regards to any of those schools and nearby renatl apartments at low cost. I currently rent twobed room apartment and similar mightbe sufficient for me.
Also please give links where I can see more info regarding atlanta housing, shcools transport etc.
thanks
now by renting ..I am closer to work / family ..so atleast 250 $ saved in gas plus vehicle maintenance ..add another 300 in maint + hoa for new house plu 300 - 400 in prop tax etc. with this money itself --I get good deals on renting a townhome with good apartment companies (hence no HOA).
so renting is not throwing money away ..you get a place to stay (with no maintenance) ..maybe smaller in size ..so you need to ask another question ,...do I need extra space (And maintenance ..) ..before you decide to buy especially now.
Hi
I am moving to Atlanta (Meritta) soon. I got new job there.
I need some advise regarding housing situation in regards to buying home. Currently I dont own home. I went to buy home last spring at my current location ( south carolina) but luckily I didnt buy it as some one advised me not to proceed unless I plan to stay for atleast five years. So that was good for me.
Any way what are the good developing suburbun areas where we have good schools and property prices are reasonable in atlanta area?
What is the trend of house price in atlanta area?
Also regarding renting apratments, my son is in high school and I will be working in the Meritta area. I was looking for highshools and I found that Walton highschool, Pope Highschool and Roswell Highschools may be good choices nearby.
Let me know your experiences in regards to any of those schools and nearby renatl apartments at low cost. I currently rent twobed room apartment and similar mightbe sufficient for me.
Also please give links where I can see more info regarding atlanta housing, shcools transport etc.
thanks
logiclife
07-09 01:11 AM
Well, we had a good debate on Radio on KPFK today.
I would like to thank Rajiv Khanna, Stuart Anderson, Carl Shusterman, Ashish and Swadha for participating on this show. Also Aman and Ashish for arranging this with Debo.
Today, a caller called the show when Debo opened the phone lines and this guy, named Mike, went on and on about how H1B program is similar to slave trade and H1B workers live like insects by piling up 10 people in a one-bedroom apartment and work 100 hours a week for 30 thousand dollars a year bla bla bla.
Without studying due process, or policy analysis, simply crying "Slave Trade", "H1B stole my job...waaaah...waaah", "H1B replaced me...waaah...waaah", they create good sound bites and play victims.
Really, H1B program and employment based greencard program, that brings professionals in skilled occupation into this country to fill a shortage of skilled workers has been vindicated beyond limit. And they keep beating the same drums. "They steal jobs". "They drive down wages". They make good soundbites. And they make good quotes for Lou Dobbs.
Let me say this to Mike and the likes of Zazona.com
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor. If they apply for greencard, then that's because they want him on a permenant basis and there is a another labor certification process for that too, where there are newspaper and other advertisements for the job available to citizens first. Upon not finding a suitable fit, they file for labor certification. And let me remind you all that it takes 2-3 years for department of labor to do that coz they do an exhaustive review of the job offer.
Go Here on this link of Department of labor (http://ows.doleta.gov/foreign/perm.asp)and read the process for yourself. This system is designed to protect the citizens and IT WORKS.
Now in a few cases, if there was fraud, then that doesnt mean that the system does not work and should be abolished. Its like saying that we should abolish driving privileges of everyone just because some drivers drive drunk and kill pedestrians. By that token, we must also ground all commercial air travel because sometimes the planes crash and they kill people.
Another accusation is that H1B employees pay for their own fees sometimes and also for lawyer's fees. And they work like donkeys. Well, not everyone pays for the lawyers. In some rare cases, if the employees hire lawyers, its their own choice, for their own comfort and for their own complicated cases which are many time due to problems of their own making. Why would the employer pay for individuals immigration problems that are not tied to H1B or GC petitions filed by Lawyer? As to working additional hours, its called overtime my dear friend. And they are paid to do that. No one works for free. And no one works for less. If they are paid less than what they think they deserve, then they quit the employer and go to another employer next door who pays them more and treats them fairly.
And ya, another thing. Biggest subscriber of H1B program, especially since the late 90s has be the IT industry. Unemployment in IT industry is less than 2%. If H1B program is really making life worse, I am sure IT industry unemployment would have been more than national average of 5%.
And now, let me mention a few slaves and their slave-masters that I am really proud of...
There are nearly 2000 doctors who are on their path to permenant residency(Green card) in America. They are under Conrad-30 (J1) program. They serve 4 million americans in medically underserved areas. These are rural areas where its hard to find a proper grocery store, let alone a Doctor.
One of my friends works as a Doctor in Yuma, Arizona. The greencard process for him stalls him for years and years to move to a more desirable area even if he has done his due of serving in rural areas for X amount of years. His process would start over again if the area is no longer medically underserved.
And then there are nurses, who also make it to America from all over the world on H1B program. Now, if you've ever been to a Hospital, you would know that its not really the most pleasant job in the world. And there is a severe shortage of nurses in America. Even a 5 year old knows this. So by abolishing H1B program and employment based immigration program, you would get rid of the SLAVE nurses too, who work 12-hour shifts on jobs that American born RNA nurses dont accept.
Such Doctors and nurses are a beacon of hope to 4 million Americans where healthcare is difficult to come by. If such Doctors are slaves, then I am proud of those slaves and their slave masters, and I would love to be either one of them any given day of the week.
-Have a great weekend-
I would like to thank Rajiv Khanna, Stuart Anderson, Carl Shusterman, Ashish and Swadha for participating on this show. Also Aman and Ashish for arranging this with Debo.
Today, a caller called the show when Debo opened the phone lines and this guy, named Mike, went on and on about how H1B program is similar to slave trade and H1B workers live like insects by piling up 10 people in a one-bedroom apartment and work 100 hours a week for 30 thousand dollars a year bla bla bla.
Without studying due process, or policy analysis, simply crying "Slave Trade", "H1B stole my job...waaaah...waaah", "H1B replaced me...waaah...waaah", they create good sound bites and play victims.
Really, H1B program and employment based greencard program, that brings professionals in skilled occupation into this country to fill a shortage of skilled workers has been vindicated beyond limit. And they keep beating the same drums. "They steal jobs". "They drive down wages". They make good soundbites. And they make good quotes for Lou Dobbs.
Let me say this to Mike and the likes of Zazona.com
Employers dont just go around spending thousands of dollars on H1B fees and greencard fees to hire a guy with foreign accent if a native citizen was available. And they do not underpay them, because they HAVE to pay prevailing wages based on the wages determined by the Department of labor. If they apply for greencard, then that's because they want him on a permenant basis and there is a another labor certification process for that too, where there are newspaper and other advertisements for the job available to citizens first. Upon not finding a suitable fit, they file for labor certification. And let me remind you all that it takes 2-3 years for department of labor to do that coz they do an exhaustive review of the job offer.
Go Here on this link of Department of labor (http://ows.doleta.gov/foreign/perm.asp)and read the process for yourself. This system is designed to protect the citizens and IT WORKS.
Now in a few cases, if there was fraud, then that doesnt mean that the system does not work and should be abolished. Its like saying that we should abolish driving privileges of everyone just because some drivers drive drunk and kill pedestrians. By that token, we must also ground all commercial air travel because sometimes the planes crash and they kill people.
Another accusation is that H1B employees pay for their own fees sometimes and also for lawyer's fees. And they work like donkeys. Well, not everyone pays for the lawyers. In some rare cases, if the employees hire lawyers, its their own choice, for their own comfort and for their own complicated cases which are many time due to problems of their own making. Why would the employer pay for individuals immigration problems that are not tied to H1B or GC petitions filed by Lawyer? As to working additional hours, its called overtime my dear friend. And they are paid to do that. No one works for free. And no one works for less. If they are paid less than what they think they deserve, then they quit the employer and go to another employer next door who pays them more and treats them fairly.
And ya, another thing. Biggest subscriber of H1B program, especially since the late 90s has be the IT industry. Unemployment in IT industry is less than 2%. If H1B program is really making life worse, I am sure IT industry unemployment would have been more than national average of 5%.
And now, let me mention a few slaves and their slave-masters that I am really proud of...
There are nearly 2000 doctors who are on their path to permenant residency(Green card) in America. They are under Conrad-30 (J1) program. They serve 4 million americans in medically underserved areas. These are rural areas where its hard to find a proper grocery store, let alone a Doctor.
One of my friends works as a Doctor in Yuma, Arizona. The greencard process for him stalls him for years and years to move to a more desirable area even if he has done his due of serving in rural areas for X amount of years. His process would start over again if the area is no longer medically underserved.
And then there are nurses, who also make it to America from all over the world on H1B program. Now, if you've ever been to a Hospital, you would know that its not really the most pleasant job in the world. And there is a severe shortage of nurses in America. Even a 5 year old knows this. So by abolishing H1B program and employment based immigration program, you would get rid of the SLAVE nurses too, who work 12-hour shifts on jobs that American born RNA nurses dont accept.
Such Doctors and nurses are a beacon of hope to 4 million Americans where healthcare is difficult to come by. If such Doctors are slaves, then I am proud of those slaves and their slave masters, and I would love to be either one of them any given day of the week.
-Have a great weekend-
2011 male elly utton piercing.
abracadabra102
12-27 12:24 PM
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
more...
ArkBird
01-06 05:26 PM
Tomplate,
I am not angry or anything. I am just sitting quitely, surfing net and enjoying my evening coffee.
But i was so shocked when i read about school bombing and innocent school kids being murdered within seconds.
If you have kids then you will realize how hard it is to loose kids. Kids are innocent and wonderful thing, but these murderers are not sparing even kids.
So called peace loving nations and so called peace loving leaders and sitting and watching this massacre quitely. Thats what hurts me most.
Egypt sent 62 Ambulance to evacuate sick and ills from the hospital of Gaza and Hamas didn't allow anyone to leave. Why?
I am not angry or anything. I am just sitting quitely, surfing net and enjoying my evening coffee.
But i was so shocked when i read about school bombing and innocent school kids being murdered within seconds.
If you have kids then you will realize how hard it is to loose kids. Kids are innocent and wonderful thing, but these murderers are not sparing even kids.
So called peace loving nations and so called peace loving leaders and sitting and watching this massacre quitely. Thats what hurts me most.
Egypt sent 62 Ambulance to evacuate sick and ills from the hospital of Gaza and Hamas didn't allow anyone to leave. Why?
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
more...
Marphad
01-07 04:30 PM
Because he committed Gujarat Genocide. My response was to the one who mentioned "All terrorirst are muslims".
Didn't the truth finding commission found the real culprits in Sabarmati issue?
Yes Nanavati commission found Madresa in Godhra was responsible!
Didn't the truth finding commission found the real culprits in Sabarmati issue?
Yes Nanavati commission found Madresa in Godhra was responsible!
2010 Belly Button Piercing Story
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
more...
NKR
08-05 08:38 AM
Why did they not take the employer to court? Why make the EB2 line suffer for these employer's faults?
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
And start the GC process all over again?. well isn't there an easy option of converting to EB2?. :)
If an employer wrongly files your case under EB3 instead of EB2 or EB1, then the onus is on you to challenge them and take them to court if need be.
And start the GC process all over again?. well isn't there an easy option of converting to EB2?. :)
hair Belly Button Piercing
Macaca
05-09 05:51 PM
After bin Laden, U.S. Will Look East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/05/06/after_bin_laden_us_will_look_east_99510.html) By Daniel Kilman | German Marshall Fund
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
more...
raysaikat
06-24 12:04 PM
[snip...]
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
hot bottom there Navel pierced
meridiani.planum
07-13 12:26 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
I like that splitting the overflow across EB2-EB3 idea. That does make it a lot more fair to a lot of people. Its not right that people with 2001 PD still dont have an approval (I have a 2006 PD, but have been here for ~8 years, so I know how frustrating it is to wait so long on temporary status)
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
I like that splitting the overflow across EB2-EB3 idea. That does make it a lot more fair to a lot of people. Its not right that people with 2001 PD still dont have an approval (I have a 2006 PD, but have been here for ~8 years, so I know how frustrating it is to wait so long on temporary status)
more...
house Say about navel-piercing-cost
pete
04-10 04:12 PM
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
Fighting between EB categories shows how shallow our debates can turn out to be! Rhimzim & all, do the illegals differentiate between meat packers, seamstresses, window cleaners etc.? Why waste time and energy?
tattoo hairstyles to get my elly
nojoke
06-26 04:35 PM
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
more...
pictures your new navel piercing at
Legal
08-05 09:00 PM
I enjoyed both the original and follow-up. By the time, the lion gets the GC, he might have forgot he was a lion, and even after getting GC, he will continue to act like monkey.
the Lion on the monkey visa finding out another Indian (very, very aggravating factor:p) lion in next cage actually on lion visa and not on a monkey visa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! phew! !!!!!!!!!!!! what a heartburn! threatening law suits, opening a new thread in IV. Generally threatening to bring down the zoo::D
the Lion on the monkey visa finding out another Indian (very, very aggravating factor:p) lion in next cage actually on lion visa and not on a monkey visa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! phew! !!!!!!!!!!!! what a heartburn! threatening law suits, opening a new thread in IV. Generally threatening to bring down the zoo::D
dresses Navel piercing will take some
mrajatish
07-08 10:35 AM
1. 245(k) is applicable automatically for all eb I-485. There is no penalty fee for 245(k).
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
You are right about the dependent/derivative thing - it was my misunderstanding.
The USCIS field manual on this: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/USCIS%20Training%20Materials%20on%20Sec%20245(k).p df
Best explanation I found: http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news05/news05_0825.htm
245(k) reads:
"(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C), under section 203(b)(4)) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission."
Unauthorized Employment
Subject to INA �245(i) and 245(k), applicants for adjustment of status who have engaged in unauthorized employment on or after January 1, 1977 are barred from adjustment of status pursuant to INA �245(c)(2). Unauthorized employment is a bar to adjustment of status to persons who engaged in unauthorized employment even after their adjustment application was filed. This bar does not apply to employment-based petitions where person worked no more than 180 days without permission since his last entry into the U.S. [INA �245(k)]. Immediate relatives and special immigrants described in INA ��101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) are also exempt from this bar.
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
You are right about the dependent/derivative thing - it was my misunderstanding.
The USCIS field manual on this: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/USCIS%20Training%20Materials%20on%20Sec%20245(k).p df
Best explanation I found: http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news05/news05_0825.htm
245(k) reads:
"(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C), under section 203(b)(4)) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission."
Unauthorized Employment
Subject to INA �245(i) and 245(k), applicants for adjustment of status who have engaged in unauthorized employment on or after January 1, 1977 are barred from adjustment of status pursuant to INA �245(c)(2). Unauthorized employment is a bar to adjustment of status to persons who engaged in unauthorized employment even after their adjustment application was filed. This bar does not apply to employment-based petitions where person worked no more than 180 days without permission since his last entry into the U.S. [INA �245(k)]. Immediate relatives and special immigrants described in INA ��101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) are also exempt from this bar.
more...
makeup Should I get my elly button
nk2006
09-30 10:13 AM
I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
girlfriend 2011 My elly button hurt more
akred
04-07 01:35 PM
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
hairstyles Janet Jackson#39;s Belly Button
Macaca
03-06 09:01 PM
Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) by Michael F. Hammond and
Damaris Del Valle
H-1B visa -- From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa)
Questions & Answers from CIS Ombudsman's Teleconference (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1175876976479.shtm)
I-485 Standard Operating Procedure (http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf)
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) by Michael F. Hammond and
Damaris Del Valle
H-1B visa -- From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa)
Questions & Answers from CIS Ombudsman's Teleconference (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1175876976479.shtm)
I-485 Standard Operating Procedure (http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf)
Macaca
12-28 08:03 AM
House Members Spent $20.3M on Mailings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122700903.html?hpid=sec-politics) By DENNIS CONRAD | Associated Press, Dec 28, 2007
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
jung.lee
04-05 06:07 PM
The analysis is interesting, but this much amount has already been written off considering 100% of option ARM, and alt-ARM will fail.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.