Beemar
12-27 01:19 PM
LOL. and we know the kinda quality to expect :-)
Oh yeah. Quality is a major problem with chinese goods. Pakistanis thought a got a great deal in price, but it might turn out be a lemon nuke. :)
Oh yeah. Quality is a major problem with chinese goods. Pakistanis thought a got a great deal in price, but it might turn out be a lemon nuke. :)
wallpaper hair pixar up coloring page.
485Mbe4001
07-14 03:16 AM
Why are you so worried about this initiative. Do you think an official at USCIS will read a letter and change the process in one day. If you think so then i wish you had written a letter during the letter campaign, we needed someone with your 'positive' attitude. I have sent letters to everybodies uncle and this is my 8th year waiting in EB3 and 12th year in US. Give us a chance to express our thoughts and wallow in our black hole.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
Nobody cares what qualifications u have. EB1, EB2 and EB3 is what matters at the end of the day.
This letter is utter nonsense. Admins, Moderators...pls stop this nuisance as this will cause internal fighting and end up in nobody receiving any benefits in the near future. If USCIS responds +vely to that letter, then do u think EB2s will keep quiet??? This will cause chaos and thus nobody will get anything out of it. Why is this thread still alive. Pani, the starter of this thread shud be banned for initiating this effort. Shud anything -ve happen to EB2s as an outcome of this, I'm gonna hunt that fellow and sue him for ruining my life.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
Nobody cares what qualifications u have. EB1, EB2 and EB3 is what matters at the end of the day.
This letter is utter nonsense. Admins, Moderators...pls stop this nuisance as this will cause internal fighting and end up in nobody receiving any benefits in the near future. If USCIS responds +vely to that letter, then do u think EB2s will keep quiet??? This will cause chaos and thus nobody will get anything out of it. Why is this thread still alive. Pani, the starter of this thread shud be banned for initiating this effort. Shud anything -ve happen to EB2s as an outcome of this, I'm gonna hunt that fellow and sue him for ruining my life.
sanju
08-06 06:16 PM
6hVp9t_13_g
2011 2010 pixar cars coloring
rimzhim
01-28 10:02 AM
Lou Dobbs has found an audience who oppose any form of immigration. Lou picks and choose facts which support his point of view and no one at CNN is stopping him because his ratings have gone up with his rant...
It is clear that the number exceeds 65K+20 K because of the exemptions. Wonder how CNN gets away with garbage like this....:(
It is clear that the number exceeds 65K+20 K because of the exemptions. Wonder how CNN gets away with garbage like this....:(
more...
qasleuth
03-31 09:58 PM
I was quoting you to make a point, did not mean to put words in your mouth. Apologies.
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/07 and notice date is 09/06/2007, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
Didn't say anything about "systematic" at all - I think we all know better than to use "systematic" and "USCIS" in the same sentence!:D However, they definitely seem to be making some progress on adjudications even if none the country caps limit green cards issual. Aamazing how you can change behaviour when you set a goal and start to measure people on it - looking at the bits and pieces of info being released by USCIS, you can see something is changing and I would suspect a lot has to do with the new leadership in government, that has a mandate for greater transparency (unlike their predecessors). Given the lack of visibility to Case Officers of cases with old PD's (they track by RDs and not PDs), I cannot but believe this will be good for getting some structure into the system.
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/07 and notice date is 09/06/2007, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
Didn't say anything about "systematic" at all - I think we all know better than to use "systematic" and "USCIS" in the same sentence!:D However, they definitely seem to be making some progress on adjudications even if none the country caps limit green cards issual. Aamazing how you can change behaviour when you set a goal and start to measure people on it - looking at the bits and pieces of info being released by USCIS, you can see something is changing and I would suspect a lot has to do with the new leadership in government, that has a mandate for greater transparency (unlike their predecessors). Given the lack of visibility to Case Officers of cases with old PD's (they track by RDs and not PDs), I cannot but believe this will be good for getting some structure into the system.
unitednations
03-26 09:24 PM
Thanks UN. Just a follow up question, how would you advise to cases where the labor was filed at client location and the employee shifted to another state right after the 140 approval. I guess in this case there is no chance of convincing USCIS about AC-21 invokation. How would you act if such query comes up? Or is there a chance to get this query these days at the time of 485 processing.? Thanks in advance. With this, I would have all my doubts clarified regarding the work location. And also, I hope it does to so many others.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
more...
GCapplicant
09-26 10:02 AM
For me Obama and Mccain are equally good candidates. I would prefer Hillary Clinton over both of them.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
I agree with you - mediating with Caucus is the only option.Legal is nothing infront of them.They are the real majority when compared to our %.
Even if they bring new restriction over EB category - we have already applied and are in our final stage only.It's only the visa numbers.
The new rules might be for the new applicants ,maximum they might bring in Stem.There is nothing more they can do for us.More restrictions on us is quite impossible.
Oct 2009 should be in favor to us all.I have to only pray God.We have to just move on with our life.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
I agree with you - mediating with Caucus is the only option.Legal is nothing infront of them.They are the real majority when compared to our %.
Even if they bring new restriction over EB category - we have already applied and are in our final stage only.It's only the visa numbers.
The new rules might be for the new applicants ,maximum they might bring in Stem.There is nothing more they can do for us.More restrictions on us is quite impossible.
Oct 2009 should be in favor to us all.I have to only pray God.We have to just move on with our life.
2010 I love children#39;s coloring
unitednations
07-09 10:55 AM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
more...
Macaca
12-27 06:16 PM
Of luxury cars and lowly tractors (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/article995828.ece) By P. SAINATH | The Hindu
When businessmen from Aurangabad in the backward Marathwada region bought 150 Mercedes Benz luxury cars worth Rs. 65 crore at one go in October, it grabbed media attention. The top public sector bank, State Bank of India, offered the buyers loans of over Rs. 40 crore. �This,� says Devidas Tulzapurkar, president of the Aurangabad district bank employees association, �at an interest rate of 7 per cent.� A top SBI official said the bank was �proud to be part of this deal,� and would �continue to scout for similar deals in the future.�
The value of the Mercedes deal equals the annual income of tens of thousands of rural Marathwada households. And countless farmers in Maharashtra struggle to get any loans from formal sources of credit. It took roughly a decade and tens of thousands of suicides before Indian farmers got loans at 7 per cent interest � many, in theory only. Prior to 2005, those who got any bank loans at all shelled out between 9 and 12 per cent. Several were forced to take non-agricultural loans at even higher rates of interest. Buy a Mercedes, pay 7 per cent interest. Buy a tractor, pay 12 per cent. The hallowed micro-finance institutions (MFIs) do worse. There, it's smaller sums at interest rates of between 24 and 36 per cent or higher.
Starved of credit, peasants turned to moneylenders and other informal sources. Within 10 years from 1991, the number of Indian farm households in debt almost doubled from 26 per cent to 48.6 per cent. A crazy underestimate but an official number. Many policy-driven disasters hit farmers at the same time. Exploding input costs in the name of �market-based prices.' Crashing prices for their commercial crops, often rigged by powerful traders and corporations. Slashing of investment in agriculture. A credit squeeze as banks moved away from farm loans to fuelling upper middle class lifestyles. Within the many factors driving over two lakh farmers to suicide in 13 years, indebtedness and the credit squeeze rank high. (And MFIs are now among the squeezers).
What remained of farm credit was hijacked. A devastating piece in The Hindu (Aug. 13) showed us how. Almost half the total �agricultural credit� in the State of Maharashtra in 2008 was disbursed not by rural banks but by urban and metro branches. Over 42 per cent of it in just Mumbai � stomping ground of large corporations rather than of small farmers.
Even as the media celebrate our greatest car deal ever as a sign of �rural resurgence,� the subject of many media stories, comes the latest data of the National Crime Records Bureau. These show a sharp increase in farm suicides in 2009 with at least 17,368 farmers killing themselves in the year of �rural resurgence.� That's over 7 per cent higher than in 2008 and the worst numbers since 2004. This brings the total farm suicides since 1997 to 216,500. While all suicides have multiple causes, their strong concentration within regions and among cash crop farmers is an alarming and dismal trend.
The NCRB, a wing of the Union Home Ministry, has been tracking farm suicide data since 1995. However, researchers mostly use their data from 1997 onwards. This is because the 1995 and 1996 data are incomplete. The system was new in 1995 and some big States such as Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan sent in no numbers at all that year. (In 2009, the two together saw over 1,900 farm suicides). By 1997, all States were reporting and the data are more complete.
The NCRB data end at 2009 for now. But we can assume that 2010 has seen at least 16,000 farmers' suicides. (After all, the yearly average for the last six years is 17,104). Add this 16,000 to the total 2,16,500. Also add the incomplete 1995 and 1996 numbers � that is 24,449 suicides. This brings the 1995-2010 total to 2,56,949. Reflect on this figure a moment.
It means over a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995. It means the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history has occurred in this country in the past 16 years. It means one-and-a-half million human beings, family members of those killing themselves, have been tormented by the tragedy. While millions more face the very problems that drove so many to suicide. It means farmers in thousands of villages have seen their neighbours take this incredibly sad way out. A way out that more and more will consider as despair grows and policies don't change. It means the heartlessness of the Indian elite is impossible to imagine, leave alone measure.
Note that these numbers are gross underestimates to begin with. Several large groups of farmers are mostly excluded from local counts. Women, for instance. Social and other prejudice means that, most times, a woman farmer killing herself is counted as suicide � not as a farmer's suicide. Because the land is rarely in a woman's name.
Then there is the plain fraud that some governments resort to. Maharashtra being the classic example. The government here has lied so many times that it contradicts itself thrice within a week. In May this year, for instance, three �official' estimates of farm suicides in the worst-hit Vidarbha region varied by 5,500 per cent. The lowest count being just six in four months (See �How to be an eligible suicide,� The Hindu, May 13, 2010).
The NCRB figure for Maharashtra as a whole in 2009 is 2,872 farmers' suicides. So it remains the worst State for farm suicides for the tenth year running. The �decline' of 930 that this figure represents would be joyous if true. But no State has worked harder to falsify reality. For 13 years, the State has seen a nearly unrelenting rise. Suddenly, there's a drop of 436 and 930 in 2008 and 2009. How? For almost four years now, committees have functioned in Vidarbha's crisis districts to dismiss most suicides as �non-genuine.' What is truly frightening is the Maharashtra government's notion that fixing the numbers fixes the problem.
Yet that problem is mounting. Perhaps the State most comparable to Maharashtra in terms of population is West Bengal. Though its population is less by a few million, it has more farmers. Both States have data for 15 years since 1995. Their farm suicide annual averages in three-five year periods starting then are revealing. Maharashtra's annual average goes up in each period. From 1,963 in the five years ending with 1999 to 3,647 by 2004. And scaling 3,858 by 2009. West Bengal's yearly average registers a gradual drop in each five-year period. From 1,454 in 1999 to 1,200 in 2004 to 1,014 by 2009. While it has more farmers, its farm suicide average for the past five years is less than a third of Maharashtra's. The latter's yearly average has almost doubled since 1999.
The share of the Big 5 �suicide belt' States � Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh � remains close to two-thirds of all farm suicides. Sadly 18 of 28 States reported higher farm suicide numbers in 2009. In some the rise was negligible. In others, not. Tamil Nadu showed the biggest increase of all States, going from 512 in 2008 to 1060 in 2009. Karnataka clocked in second with a rise of 545. And Andhra Pradesh saw the third biggest rise � 309 more than in 2008. A few though did see a decline of some consequence in their farm suicide annual average figures for the last six years. Three � Karnataka, Kerala and West Bengal � saw their yearly average fall by over 350 in 2004-09 compared to the earlier seven years.
Things will get worse if existing policies on agriculture don't change. Even States that have managed some decline across 13 years will be battered. Kerala, for instance, saw an annual average of 1,371 farm suicides between 1997 and 2003. From 2004-09, its annual average was 1016 � a drop of 355. Yet Kerala will suffer greatly in the near future. Its economy is the most globalised of any State. Most crops are cash crops. Any volatility in the global prices of coffee, pepper, tea, vanilla, cardamom or rubber will affect the State. Those prices are also hugely controlled at the global level by a few corporations.
Already bludgeoned by the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), Kerala now has to contend with the one we've gotten into with ASEAN. And an FTA with the European Union is also in the offing. Kerala will pay the price. Even prior to 2004, the dumping of the so-called �Sri Lankan pepper� (mostly pepper from other countries brought in through Sri Lanka) ravaged the State. Now, we've created institutional frameworks for such dumping. Economist Professor K. Nagaraj, author of the biggest study of farm suicides in India, says: �The latest data show us that the agrarian crisis has not relented, not gone away.� The policies driving it have also not gone away.
When businessmen from Aurangabad in the backward Marathwada region bought 150 Mercedes Benz luxury cars worth Rs. 65 crore at one go in October, it grabbed media attention. The top public sector bank, State Bank of India, offered the buyers loans of over Rs. 40 crore. �This,� says Devidas Tulzapurkar, president of the Aurangabad district bank employees association, �at an interest rate of 7 per cent.� A top SBI official said the bank was �proud to be part of this deal,� and would �continue to scout for similar deals in the future.�
The value of the Mercedes deal equals the annual income of tens of thousands of rural Marathwada households. And countless farmers in Maharashtra struggle to get any loans from formal sources of credit. It took roughly a decade and tens of thousands of suicides before Indian farmers got loans at 7 per cent interest � many, in theory only. Prior to 2005, those who got any bank loans at all shelled out between 9 and 12 per cent. Several were forced to take non-agricultural loans at even higher rates of interest. Buy a Mercedes, pay 7 per cent interest. Buy a tractor, pay 12 per cent. The hallowed micro-finance institutions (MFIs) do worse. There, it's smaller sums at interest rates of between 24 and 36 per cent or higher.
Starved of credit, peasants turned to moneylenders and other informal sources. Within 10 years from 1991, the number of Indian farm households in debt almost doubled from 26 per cent to 48.6 per cent. A crazy underestimate but an official number. Many policy-driven disasters hit farmers at the same time. Exploding input costs in the name of �market-based prices.' Crashing prices for their commercial crops, often rigged by powerful traders and corporations. Slashing of investment in agriculture. A credit squeeze as banks moved away from farm loans to fuelling upper middle class lifestyles. Within the many factors driving over two lakh farmers to suicide in 13 years, indebtedness and the credit squeeze rank high. (And MFIs are now among the squeezers).
What remained of farm credit was hijacked. A devastating piece in The Hindu (Aug. 13) showed us how. Almost half the total �agricultural credit� in the State of Maharashtra in 2008 was disbursed not by rural banks but by urban and metro branches. Over 42 per cent of it in just Mumbai � stomping ground of large corporations rather than of small farmers.
Even as the media celebrate our greatest car deal ever as a sign of �rural resurgence,� the subject of many media stories, comes the latest data of the National Crime Records Bureau. These show a sharp increase in farm suicides in 2009 with at least 17,368 farmers killing themselves in the year of �rural resurgence.� That's over 7 per cent higher than in 2008 and the worst numbers since 2004. This brings the total farm suicides since 1997 to 216,500. While all suicides have multiple causes, their strong concentration within regions and among cash crop farmers is an alarming and dismal trend.
The NCRB, a wing of the Union Home Ministry, has been tracking farm suicide data since 1995. However, researchers mostly use their data from 1997 onwards. This is because the 1995 and 1996 data are incomplete. The system was new in 1995 and some big States such as Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan sent in no numbers at all that year. (In 2009, the two together saw over 1,900 farm suicides). By 1997, all States were reporting and the data are more complete.
The NCRB data end at 2009 for now. But we can assume that 2010 has seen at least 16,000 farmers' suicides. (After all, the yearly average for the last six years is 17,104). Add this 16,000 to the total 2,16,500. Also add the incomplete 1995 and 1996 numbers � that is 24,449 suicides. This brings the 1995-2010 total to 2,56,949. Reflect on this figure a moment.
It means over a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995. It means the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history has occurred in this country in the past 16 years. It means one-and-a-half million human beings, family members of those killing themselves, have been tormented by the tragedy. While millions more face the very problems that drove so many to suicide. It means farmers in thousands of villages have seen their neighbours take this incredibly sad way out. A way out that more and more will consider as despair grows and policies don't change. It means the heartlessness of the Indian elite is impossible to imagine, leave alone measure.
Note that these numbers are gross underestimates to begin with. Several large groups of farmers are mostly excluded from local counts. Women, for instance. Social and other prejudice means that, most times, a woman farmer killing herself is counted as suicide � not as a farmer's suicide. Because the land is rarely in a woman's name.
Then there is the plain fraud that some governments resort to. Maharashtra being the classic example. The government here has lied so many times that it contradicts itself thrice within a week. In May this year, for instance, three �official' estimates of farm suicides in the worst-hit Vidarbha region varied by 5,500 per cent. The lowest count being just six in four months (See �How to be an eligible suicide,� The Hindu, May 13, 2010).
The NCRB figure for Maharashtra as a whole in 2009 is 2,872 farmers' suicides. So it remains the worst State for farm suicides for the tenth year running. The �decline' of 930 that this figure represents would be joyous if true. But no State has worked harder to falsify reality. For 13 years, the State has seen a nearly unrelenting rise. Suddenly, there's a drop of 436 and 930 in 2008 and 2009. How? For almost four years now, committees have functioned in Vidarbha's crisis districts to dismiss most suicides as �non-genuine.' What is truly frightening is the Maharashtra government's notion that fixing the numbers fixes the problem.
Yet that problem is mounting. Perhaps the State most comparable to Maharashtra in terms of population is West Bengal. Though its population is less by a few million, it has more farmers. Both States have data for 15 years since 1995. Their farm suicide annual averages in three-five year periods starting then are revealing. Maharashtra's annual average goes up in each period. From 1,963 in the five years ending with 1999 to 3,647 by 2004. And scaling 3,858 by 2009. West Bengal's yearly average registers a gradual drop in each five-year period. From 1,454 in 1999 to 1,200 in 2004 to 1,014 by 2009. While it has more farmers, its farm suicide average for the past five years is less than a third of Maharashtra's. The latter's yearly average has almost doubled since 1999.
The share of the Big 5 �suicide belt' States � Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh � remains close to two-thirds of all farm suicides. Sadly 18 of 28 States reported higher farm suicide numbers in 2009. In some the rise was negligible. In others, not. Tamil Nadu showed the biggest increase of all States, going from 512 in 2008 to 1060 in 2009. Karnataka clocked in second with a rise of 545. And Andhra Pradesh saw the third biggest rise � 309 more than in 2008. A few though did see a decline of some consequence in their farm suicide annual average figures for the last six years. Three � Karnataka, Kerala and West Bengal � saw their yearly average fall by over 350 in 2004-09 compared to the earlier seven years.
Things will get worse if existing policies on agriculture don't change. Even States that have managed some decline across 13 years will be battered. Kerala, for instance, saw an annual average of 1,371 farm suicides between 1997 and 2003. From 2004-09, its annual average was 1016 � a drop of 355. Yet Kerala will suffer greatly in the near future. Its economy is the most globalised of any State. Most crops are cash crops. Any volatility in the global prices of coffee, pepper, tea, vanilla, cardamom or rubber will affect the State. Those prices are also hugely controlled at the global level by a few corporations.
Already bludgeoned by the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), Kerala now has to contend with the one we've gotten into with ASEAN. And an FTA with the European Union is also in the offing. Kerala will pay the price. Even prior to 2004, the dumping of the so-called �Sri Lankan pepper� (mostly pepper from other countries brought in through Sri Lanka) ravaged the State. Now, we've created institutional frameworks for such dumping. Economist Professor K. Nagaraj, author of the biggest study of farm suicides in India, says: �The latest data show us that the agrarian crisis has not relented, not gone away.� The policies driving it have also not gone away.
hair pixar up coloring page.
smuggymba
07-28 01:37 PM
I regret the day when Obama became the president, he is just another politician who does not give a damn about EB2,EB3....he is just worried about "re-uniting families" (aka supporter of illegal immigration)
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-08 11:23 PM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
hot Disney Pixar Cars Coloring
sledge_hammer
06-25 02:56 PM
If you have only been reading all the doomsday articles on the net about another nosedive in the realestate market, then I must suggest you to step out and smell the coffee. Other than in a few areas like Detroit and Miami, the home prices are close to stable and are not heading to fall another 10%. When people write articles they want to sensationalize thier reports. What's happening in Detriot will not be happening everywhere in the nation. Real estate markets are very local and cannot be generalized. So anyone that is thinking that there is going to be another HUGE drop in home prices are mistaken.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
Yes, you are right, absolutely no one can time the market. That is why it is a great strategy not to speculate, but go by the fact that real estate prices are affordable now and interest rates are the lowest in recent history. Don't think that just because there was a bubble you'll now get good homes for anything more than 5% discount.
Remember that you probably have a job in the city you live in, and that you are continually employed, means that there are other people around you with jobs. They are ready to snap up homes even before you get to see it from the inside. I see homes that are in bad shape in my county (Fairfax, VA) sitting in the market for months. But the ones that are good goes under contract in less than a week.
Sledge,
Nobody is saying that the world is coming to and end in 2 years.IMHO myself and many others would agree that long term buying a house makes sense. The question is does buying now if you haven't already bought your primary residential home make any sense.
From the current data, Do you think a guy who buys a house in 2009 would come ahead of somebody who would buys in 2011 when the housing market may have fully bottomed out ? I know its impossible to time the market. But all indicators to name a few below point that home prices should continue to decline.
Unemployment is still on the way up. We will cross 10% anytime soon is a given.
Excess housing inventory
Home prices are still above the trend line. Historically its common for the correction to swing even below the trend line before it stabilizes.
Again IMHO, If you haven't bought a home yet, Save so that you can make a bigger down payment (Own more of the house when you buy one) and check the market again mid 2010.
Giving your example.
Lets say guy buys in 2009, and another guy buys in 2011 (Assuming home prices would have further gone down using existing data points).. Who do you think would come ahead in 2019.
more...
house these disney pixar cars
ganguteli
03-23 12:30 PM
The other day someone called me offering to sell some services.
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
tattoo pixar cars coloring pages.
Nickjr
09-26 09:37 AM
I am a big supporter of Obama and a big fan and am eagerly looking forward to see him as our next President of United States. As a legal highly skilled immigrant what can I expect? Well, not sure if I would see myself living here anymore. I have been in the green card queue for more than 8 years now and still waiting. Will Obama's administration do anything for people like me to help reduce backlog? I doubt such a thing will ever happen. I would see myself and people like me discouraged and start packing our bags and move on with life.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
************************************************** **
I agree that there is general perception floating around which suggests that Democrats would not support EB.
But I have feeling that in teh dog eats dog world no one does favor on any one.when they say amensity for illigal immigrants there is some interests as polictal parties look for vote bank.
Lets assume that if Obama would be in power I guess in that case surely they will have to sing diffrent tune ( if we assume that they are completely against immigration which I doubt) as country has to give enough consideration to the fact that US needs foriegn workers. With such economy no one can ignore that if we don't encourage GC process there would be reverse brain drain. Companies like Microsoft has already started moving some operations in canada and other countries to accomadate foreign workers. Yes they would not do for you and me but they will have to do for strong business communities.
I really like the point mentioned here if you allow me I can forward this to Obama campaign for clarification on this..
Cheers
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
************************************************** **
I agree that there is general perception floating around which suggests that Democrats would not support EB.
But I have feeling that in teh dog eats dog world no one does favor on any one.when they say amensity for illigal immigrants there is some interests as polictal parties look for vote bank.
Lets assume that if Obama would be in power I guess in that case surely they will have to sing diffrent tune ( if we assume that they are completely against immigration which I doubt) as country has to give enough consideration to the fact that US needs foriegn workers. With such economy no one can ignore that if we don't encourage GC process there would be reverse brain drain. Companies like Microsoft has already started moving some operations in canada and other countries to accomadate foreign workers. Yes they would not do for you and me but they will have to do for strong business communities.
I really like the point mentioned here if you allow me I can forward this to Obama campaign for clarification on this..
Cheers
more...
pictures girlfriend disney pixar cars 2
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:42 PM
ganguteli:
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Don't get me wrong, I feel you!
But, simply saying that the law took a long time to catch up hence we should be let to continue exploiting the loopholes will not get us too far. And I think this is what you are asking for.
We are here because USCIS allowed us to come here. We (employees, employers, immigration lawyers) should have done our due diligence in doing everything possible to protect ourselves against possible/potential audits and queries. Someone should have warned us that there is actually a difference between "temp job" and "full-time job" (EDITED: for GC requirements) like 20 years ago when this consulting business started. The very same people who did not warn us should actually have told us that LCA location is not to be taken lightly, that benching is not okay. All of these did not even occur to us when we enjoyed our lives in this nation.
Yes, USCIS is awake all of a sudden. They are enforcing rules all of a sudden. They are scrutinizing our application all of a sudden. Is that illegal for them to do it? NO. Can something be done to stop them? Certainly NOT. What could we have done to avoid getting into the soup? Should have seen this coming!!!!!!!!
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
dresses hairstyles sheets disney pixar
h1techSlave
12-26 09:59 PM
Like a few of us are pointing out here, a full fledged war between India and Pak is only good for China.
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
more...
makeup makeup pixar cars 2 coloring
anandrajesh
03-24 11:17 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
girlfriend disney pixar cars coloring
amsgc
08-25 10:21 PM
.
hairstyles pixar cars 2 coloring pages.
Macaca
08-17 09:12 PM
Dem majority triggers mixed results for K St. (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem-majority-triggers-mixed-results-for-k-st.-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill, August 15, 2007
Patton Boggs appears likely to continue as the reigning king of K Street with a revenue growth of nearly 9 percent, according to mid-year lobbying reports filed to Congress Tuesday.
The law firm earned nearly $19.4 million from lobbying as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, or LDA, for the first half of 2007, versus the $17.8 million it took in during the first six months of 2006. The firm finished first in the revenue race in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Elsewhere along Washington’s lobbying corridor, though, results were decidedly more mixed. While several firms reported revenue growth, a number have yet to shake off the doldrums of the last half of 2006, when legislative activity dropped off as members left town to campaign for the midterm election.
For example, Cassidy & Associates reported a slight dip in revenues in 2007. It reported $12.3 million for mid-year 2007 versus the $12.6 million the firm reported a year ago.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another big earner, reported flat revenues. Hogan & Hartson, a top 10 earner, reported a slight dip (see chart, P 9).
The LDA numbers were due Tuesday, and several big names did not have their revenue totals ready by press time. These firms include Dutko Worldwide, which generated more than $20 million in lobbying revenues last year.
(The figures will be added to the chart online at thehill.com as they become available.)
The firms that did well attribute their success in part to the new Democratic majorities.
Perhaps the biggest success story so far is Ogilvy Government Relations. The newly bipartisan firm, which was formerly all-Republican and known as the Federalist Group, reported mid-year totals of $12.4 million, versus the $6.8 million it reported for the first six months of 2006.
“We have added talented Democrats that have contributed significant value to our clients and the firm,” said Drew Maloney, a managing director at Ogilvy and a former aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Although the switch to bipartisan seems to have been a good one, the firm’s success can largely be attributed to one client. Blackstone Group, which is lobbying against a proposed tax hike on private equity firms, has paid Ogilvy $3.74 million so far this year. Blackstone paid Ogilvy just $240,000 for all of 2006.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a perennial top five earner, also grew. The firm reported mid-year totals of $15.2 million, compared to $13.3 million during the first half of 2006.
Joel Jankowsky, who runs Akin Gump’s policy practice, said Democrats have been good for his firm’s bottom line.
“The change in Congress has increased activity on a variety of issues and that has spawned more work,” Jankowsky said. Akin Gump now counts 186 clients versus the 165 clients it had at the end of last year.
Barbour Griffith & Rogers and K & L Gates’s policy group each also reported a slight growth over their revenue totals of a year ago.
Even firms that did less well were optimistic business was beginning to pick up, even though Democrats have sought to change the cozy relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists through new gift and travel limitations and other rules.
Gregg Hartley, vice chairman and chief operating officer for Cassidy, said the firm’s business was rebounding from a slow 2006.
“I see us on the way back up,” he said.
The Cassidy figure does not include revenues reported by its affiliate, the Rhoads Group, which reported an additional $2.2 million in revenue.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another top five firm, reported Tuesday that it made $12.5 million this year, roughly the same it reported during the comparable period a year ago.
“We held pretty even in a very difficult environment and I would consider that a pretty successful first half,” said Stu Van Scoyoc, president of the firm.
Scandals have made it a difficult political environment for lobbyists and clients have moved cautiously because of uncertainty about new congressional earmarking rules, Van Scoyoc said.
The LDA filings paint only part of the picture of these firms’ performances. Many of the large and mid-sized firms have lucrative lines of business in other areas.
Firms like Patton Boggs and Akin Gump that operate large legal practices are also benefiting from the more active oversight of the Democratic-led Congress, for example.
Democrats have held an estimated 600 oversight and investigation hearings so far, and many clients under the microscope have sought K Street’s counsel.
“The overall congressional activity is through the charts,” said Nick Allard, co-chairman of Patton Boggs’s public policy department.
“Lobbying reports are up, but they are just part of what we do, and underestimate what is probably a historic level of activity in Congress and as such a historic level of representation of clients before Congress,” Allard said.
The investigations also often lead to new legislation, which further drives business to K Street.
The LDA numbers also do not capture work done under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which is reported separately. Most public relations and federal marketing work, both of which are growing revenue streams for many firms, are also not reported under LDA.
Cassidy, for example, made an additional $1.4 million from FARA, public relations and federal marketing, Hartley said. Van Scoyoc also will report at least $300,000 in FARA revenue.
Moreover, the LDA itself provides firms with wide latitude in how they define lobbying activities, and thus what revenue must be accounted for in their semiannual filings.
While some firms blamed stagnant revenues on the unfavorable (and, they add, unfair) scrutiny the lobbying industry has received from the Jack Abramoff scandal, most lobbyists don’t see the recently passed lobbying/ethics bill as a threat to their businesses.
Patton Boggs’s Allard, for instance, believes the new rules may benefit firms with legal practices and larger lobbying firms that may be better equipped to manage the intricacies of the new law.
“The need for public policy advocacy doesn’t go away,” he said. Firms that relied on relationships, however, may well be hurt. Potential clients are “are not going to go for the quick fix or silver bullet or glad-handing,” Allard said.
Lobbyists will have to report more frequently. The new law requires filing quarterly rather than semi-annually.
The continued focus on earmarks, though, may eventually hurt firms that have built their practice around appropriations work, said Hartley.
“There is a potential for a dramatic impact on that part of the lobbying industry,” said Hartley.
Cassidy was once just such a firm. Until recently, as much as 70 percent of Cassidy’s lobbying revenue came from appropriations, but a four-year restructuring effort has dropped that figure to 51 percent, Hartley said.
Now 67 percent of new business is tied to non-appropriations work, he added.
The Democratic takeover of Congress also spawned a growth in all-Democratic lobbying firms.
Elmendorf Strategies, founded by Steve Elmendorf, reported revenues of nearly $1.9 million, despite having just three lobbyists. Elmendorf is a former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and is a sought-after party strategist. His firm is six months old and has 19 clients.
The firm Parven Pomper Schuyler reported revenues of $750,000 in part by targeting business-friendly Blue Dog Democrats. Scott Parven said the firm has 13 clients. It recently signed on to lobby for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The contract was not included in its mid-year filing.
K Street's Top Firms (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/k-streets-top-25-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill August 15, 2007
Patton Boggs appears likely to continue as the reigning king of K Street with a revenue growth of nearly 9 percent, according to mid-year lobbying reports filed to Congress Tuesday.
The law firm earned nearly $19.4 million from lobbying as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, or LDA, for the first half of 2007, versus the $17.8 million it took in during the first six months of 2006. The firm finished first in the revenue race in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Elsewhere along Washington’s lobbying corridor, though, results were decidedly more mixed. While several firms reported revenue growth, a number have yet to shake off the doldrums of the last half of 2006, when legislative activity dropped off as members left town to campaign for the midterm election.
For example, Cassidy & Associates reported a slight dip in revenues in 2007. It reported $12.3 million for mid-year 2007 versus the $12.6 million the firm reported a year ago.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another big earner, reported flat revenues. Hogan & Hartson, a top 10 earner, reported a slight dip (see chart, P 9).
The LDA numbers were due Tuesday, and several big names did not have their revenue totals ready by press time. These firms include Dutko Worldwide, which generated more than $20 million in lobbying revenues last year.
(The figures will be added to the chart online at thehill.com as they become available.)
The firms that did well attribute their success in part to the new Democratic majorities.
Perhaps the biggest success story so far is Ogilvy Government Relations. The newly bipartisan firm, which was formerly all-Republican and known as the Federalist Group, reported mid-year totals of $12.4 million, versus the $6.8 million it reported for the first six months of 2006.
“We have added talented Democrats that have contributed significant value to our clients and the firm,” said Drew Maloney, a managing director at Ogilvy and a former aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Although the switch to bipartisan seems to have been a good one, the firm’s success can largely be attributed to one client. Blackstone Group, which is lobbying against a proposed tax hike on private equity firms, has paid Ogilvy $3.74 million so far this year. Blackstone paid Ogilvy just $240,000 for all of 2006.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a perennial top five earner, also grew. The firm reported mid-year totals of $15.2 million, compared to $13.3 million during the first half of 2006.
Joel Jankowsky, who runs Akin Gump’s policy practice, said Democrats have been good for his firm’s bottom line.
“The change in Congress has increased activity on a variety of issues and that has spawned more work,” Jankowsky said. Akin Gump now counts 186 clients versus the 165 clients it had at the end of last year.
Barbour Griffith & Rogers and K & L Gates’s policy group each also reported a slight growth over their revenue totals of a year ago.
Even firms that did less well were optimistic business was beginning to pick up, even though Democrats have sought to change the cozy relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists through new gift and travel limitations and other rules.
Gregg Hartley, vice chairman and chief operating officer for Cassidy, said the firm’s business was rebounding from a slow 2006.
“I see us on the way back up,” he said.
The Cassidy figure does not include revenues reported by its affiliate, the Rhoads Group, which reported an additional $2.2 million in revenue.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another top five firm, reported Tuesday that it made $12.5 million this year, roughly the same it reported during the comparable period a year ago.
“We held pretty even in a very difficult environment and I would consider that a pretty successful first half,” said Stu Van Scoyoc, president of the firm.
Scandals have made it a difficult political environment for lobbyists and clients have moved cautiously because of uncertainty about new congressional earmarking rules, Van Scoyoc said.
The LDA filings paint only part of the picture of these firms’ performances. Many of the large and mid-sized firms have lucrative lines of business in other areas.
Firms like Patton Boggs and Akin Gump that operate large legal practices are also benefiting from the more active oversight of the Democratic-led Congress, for example.
Democrats have held an estimated 600 oversight and investigation hearings so far, and many clients under the microscope have sought K Street’s counsel.
“The overall congressional activity is through the charts,” said Nick Allard, co-chairman of Patton Boggs’s public policy department.
“Lobbying reports are up, but they are just part of what we do, and underestimate what is probably a historic level of activity in Congress and as such a historic level of representation of clients before Congress,” Allard said.
The investigations also often lead to new legislation, which further drives business to K Street.
The LDA numbers also do not capture work done under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which is reported separately. Most public relations and federal marketing work, both of which are growing revenue streams for many firms, are also not reported under LDA.
Cassidy, for example, made an additional $1.4 million from FARA, public relations and federal marketing, Hartley said. Van Scoyoc also will report at least $300,000 in FARA revenue.
Moreover, the LDA itself provides firms with wide latitude in how they define lobbying activities, and thus what revenue must be accounted for in their semiannual filings.
While some firms blamed stagnant revenues on the unfavorable (and, they add, unfair) scrutiny the lobbying industry has received from the Jack Abramoff scandal, most lobbyists don’t see the recently passed lobbying/ethics bill as a threat to their businesses.
Patton Boggs’s Allard, for instance, believes the new rules may benefit firms with legal practices and larger lobbying firms that may be better equipped to manage the intricacies of the new law.
“The need for public policy advocacy doesn’t go away,” he said. Firms that relied on relationships, however, may well be hurt. Potential clients are “are not going to go for the quick fix or silver bullet or glad-handing,” Allard said.
Lobbyists will have to report more frequently. The new law requires filing quarterly rather than semi-annually.
The continued focus on earmarks, though, may eventually hurt firms that have built their practice around appropriations work, said Hartley.
“There is a potential for a dramatic impact on that part of the lobbying industry,” said Hartley.
Cassidy was once just such a firm. Until recently, as much as 70 percent of Cassidy’s lobbying revenue came from appropriations, but a four-year restructuring effort has dropped that figure to 51 percent, Hartley said.
Now 67 percent of new business is tied to non-appropriations work, he added.
The Democratic takeover of Congress also spawned a growth in all-Democratic lobbying firms.
Elmendorf Strategies, founded by Steve Elmendorf, reported revenues of nearly $1.9 million, despite having just three lobbyists. Elmendorf is a former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and is a sought-after party strategist. His firm is six months old and has 19 clients.
The firm Parven Pomper Schuyler reported revenues of $750,000 in part by targeting business-friendly Blue Dog Democrats. Scott Parven said the firm has 13 clients. It recently signed on to lobby for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The contract was not included in its mid-year filing.
K Street's Top Firms (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/k-streets-top-25-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill August 15, 2007
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
akred
04-07 12:22 PM
Will 115k enough by seeing 133k applications in one day? If 115k is reached we will ask unlimited. So there should be some system to see whether those115k H1b is used properly. Employers should not wait till october and they should get people when they require. If most of the H1b quota is used by bodyshoppers where will top US companies get?
One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.
One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий