eb3India
04-06 08:39 PM
you need to touch the bottom of barrel to go on another direction, this will be the bottom of the barrel I suppose
these protectionist will realize as many H1B dependent companies virtual outsource all there jobs
well in all seriousness I don't think this bill will be passed in senate,
these protectionist will realize as many H1B dependent companies virtual outsource all there jobs
well in all seriousness I don't think this bill will be passed in senate,
wallpaper 1949 TV commercial from Camel
akgind
08-05 04:01 PM
"...We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more."
Where is the evidence? Interfiling has been legal for several years and yet EB2 PD is at 2006 whereas EB3 is still hovering around 2001. The fact is that interfiling benefits only a small fraction of EB3 filers.
Rollong_Flood, you are misleading the entire IV community.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more."
Where is the evidence? Interfiling has been legal for several years and yet EB2 PD is at 2006 whereas EB3 is still hovering around 2001. The fact is that interfiling benefits only a small fraction of EB3 filers.
Rollong_Flood, you are misleading the entire IV community.
chanduv23
05-16 09:16 AM
Cool down.....
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
All big companies including google,, yahoo, msft use tons of h1b consultants from Infy etc....
So if Infy gets affected, literally these firms get affected.
It is all a power game, where the fittest will survive. it may only be the weaker and smaller firrms that will find it difficult to adapt to such situations.
I am not saying Infy and others are doing it right. If US asking more explanation that is fine with me, they should have used their brain before approving cases, not after. My point is consulting is not new to H1, even so called big company also do that via "permanent job".
All big companies including google,, yahoo, msft use tons of h1b consultants from Infy etc....
So if Infy gets affected, literally these firms get affected.
It is all a power game, where the fittest will survive. it may only be the weaker and smaller firrms that will find it difficult to adapt to such situations.
2011 Man smoking cigarette
smisachu
12-28 08:22 PM
As I have said in my post, the pak civilian govt is not at fault; at least now. The terrorists have over run Pakistan and on a long term basis it is not only bad for India but for Pakistan itself. I am pretty sure you realize it now.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
more...
.jpg "Paek found that ads were")
spicy_guy
07-29 04:20 PM
I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
satishku_2000
05-16 02:11 PM
There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are not opposing because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have nevered felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
I have seen the worst times during 2001 and 2002 , How people were laid off from these so called permanent jobs ... hope we dont have see that again. People have to think twice before what they wish for.
Majority of them are not opposing because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have nevered felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
I have seen the worst times during 2001 and 2002 , How people were laid off from these so called permanent jobs ... hope we dont have see that again. People have to think twice before what they wish for.
more...
like_watching_paint_dry
08-07 08:57 PM
A guy walks into a bar with his pet monkey.
He orders a drink and while he's drinking, the monkey starts jumping all over the place. The monkey grabs some olives off the bar and eats them, then grabs some sliced limes and eats them, then jumps up on the pool table, grabs the cue ball, sticks it in his mouth and swallows it whole.
The bartender screams at the guy, "Did you see what your monkey just did?" The guy says, "No, what?" "He just ate the cue ball off my pool table - whole!" says the bartender.
"Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron. "He eats everything in sight, the little jerk. I'll pay for the cue ball and stuff." He finishes his drink, pays his bill, and leaves.
Two weeks later he's in the bar again, and he has his monkey with him. He orders a drink and the monkey starts running around the bar again. While the man is drinking, the monkey finds a maraschino cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his butt, pulls it out, and eats it.
The bartender is disgusted. "Did you see what your monkey did now?" "Now what?" asks the patron. "Well, he stuck a maraschino cherry up his butt, then pulled it out and ate it!" says the barkeeper. "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron.
"He still eats everything in sight, but ever since he ate that cue ball he measures everything first!"
Moderators .. please delete if inappropriate
He orders a drink and while he's drinking, the monkey starts jumping all over the place. The monkey grabs some olives off the bar and eats them, then grabs some sliced limes and eats them, then jumps up on the pool table, grabs the cue ball, sticks it in his mouth and swallows it whole.
The bartender screams at the guy, "Did you see what your monkey just did?" The guy says, "No, what?" "He just ate the cue ball off my pool table - whole!" says the bartender.
"Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron. "He eats everything in sight, the little jerk. I'll pay for the cue ball and stuff." He finishes his drink, pays his bill, and leaves.
Two weeks later he's in the bar again, and he has his monkey with him. He orders a drink and the monkey starts running around the bar again. While the man is drinking, the monkey finds a maraschino cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his butt, pulls it out, and eats it.
The bartender is disgusted. "Did you see what your monkey did now?" "Now what?" asks the patron. "Well, he stuck a maraschino cherry up his butt, then pulled it out and ate it!" says the barkeeper. "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron.
"He still eats everything in sight, but ever since he ate that cue ball he measures everything first!"
Moderators .. please delete if inappropriate
2010 in anti-smoking ads and
Macaca
12-27 06:27 PM
A Who's Who of Indian sleaze
Leaks of tapped phone conversations reveal how corruption propels India's booming economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/india-sleaze-corruption-economy)
By Praful Bidwai | The Guardian
The leak of hundreds of nearly 6,000 tapped telephone conversations between corporate lobbyist and British citizen Niira Radia and many of India's politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists has shocked the country. The tapes reveal the lobbying to assign the telecommunications portfolio to the politician A Raja, who sold mobile telephone licences at throwaway prices to favour particular companies, at an estimated loss of $12bn to $38bn to the exchequer � the highest-ever figure for an Indian corruption scandal.
Even more important, though, are the corporate lobbyists' attempts to influence government policies in a host of areas; to rig cabinet appointments; and to plant stories with high-profile journalists in which support for parochial business interests would be dressed up as "the national interest".
The tapes' dramatis personae read like a Who's Who of India, but despite the personalities involved attention is now turning to the larger story � the influence of business over politics, and lobbyists' intrusion into policy-making on scarce natural resources, licensing of industries, and "regulatory capture". Suddenly, the inner workings of government, the compromised roles of high officials and the limitless venality of businessmen stand exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
The Radia tapes are the tip of the iceberg. They shock because they provide the clinching evidence for a few of the many recent scandals, including the astronomical corruption in contracts for the Commonwealth Games; mining and metallurgical projects that blatantly violate environmental regulations; corporate land grabs in the guise of export promotion zones; the razing of virgin tropical rainforest to make way for opulent housing; and the ripping up of mountain ranges to build dams.
Scandals and corruption are not new to India. Businessmen have long milked the exchequer through tax breaks, rigged licensing procedures and fraud. What is new is the neoliberal policy context, the quality and intimacy of business-politician-bureaucrat collusion bordering on a corporate takeover of government, and the growing plunder of public money. The thinktank Global Financial Integrity estimates that rich Indians have spirited abroad the equivalent of half of India's GDP over six decades. Illicit flows have greatly increased since the economy was liberalised in 1991. The notorious (often exaggerated) excesses of the "licence-permit raj" of the 1960s and 1970s pale beside the new crony-capitalism.
Sleaze is integral to India's growth, and one of its main drivers. The growth is skewed. Agriculture has stagnated, per capita food consumption has fallen, 200,000 indebted farmers have committed suicide. Industry has grown sluggishly and only forms about one-fourth of GDP. But services have boomed. The highest growth sectors are property, construction, telecoms and road transport � not IT. Capital accumulates through the privatisation of natural resources and dispossession of whole communities. In all these sectors, and in mining and metallurgical production, what counts is privileged access to natural resources and the national commons, most critically land, which is at the core of the government's discretionary powers.
"Liberalisation" has recast discretionary powers and allowed a new business-politics relationship to develop. Behind each of India's new billionaires is political patronage. Here lies the underbelly of India's growth: using crony-capitalist influence to corner mining leases, property development rights, construction permits and airwaves. It is not the free market, but manipulation and distortion, that propels growth.
One part of the seamy side of India's growth is well-known: persistent poverty, social bondage and economic servitude. The Radia tapes highlight another: sleaze and collusive business-politics relations that mock transparency, accountability, democratic policy-making and the public interest.
Leaks of tapped phone conversations reveal how corruption propels India's booming economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/india-sleaze-corruption-economy)
By Praful Bidwai | The Guardian
The leak of hundreds of nearly 6,000 tapped telephone conversations between corporate lobbyist and British citizen Niira Radia and many of India's politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and journalists has shocked the country. The tapes reveal the lobbying to assign the telecommunications portfolio to the politician A Raja, who sold mobile telephone licences at throwaway prices to favour particular companies, at an estimated loss of $12bn to $38bn to the exchequer � the highest-ever figure for an Indian corruption scandal.
Even more important, though, are the corporate lobbyists' attempts to influence government policies in a host of areas; to rig cabinet appointments; and to plant stories with high-profile journalists in which support for parochial business interests would be dressed up as "the national interest".
The tapes' dramatis personae read like a Who's Who of India, but despite the personalities involved attention is now turning to the larger story � the influence of business over politics, and lobbyists' intrusion into policy-making on scarce natural resources, licensing of industries, and "regulatory capture". Suddenly, the inner workings of government, the compromised roles of high officials and the limitless venality of businessmen stand exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
The Radia tapes are the tip of the iceberg. They shock because they provide the clinching evidence for a few of the many recent scandals, including the astronomical corruption in contracts for the Commonwealth Games; mining and metallurgical projects that blatantly violate environmental regulations; corporate land grabs in the guise of export promotion zones; the razing of virgin tropical rainforest to make way for opulent housing; and the ripping up of mountain ranges to build dams.
Scandals and corruption are not new to India. Businessmen have long milked the exchequer through tax breaks, rigged licensing procedures and fraud. What is new is the neoliberal policy context, the quality and intimacy of business-politician-bureaucrat collusion bordering on a corporate takeover of government, and the growing plunder of public money. The thinktank Global Financial Integrity estimates that rich Indians have spirited abroad the equivalent of half of India's GDP over six decades. Illicit flows have greatly increased since the economy was liberalised in 1991. The notorious (often exaggerated) excesses of the "licence-permit raj" of the 1960s and 1970s pale beside the new crony-capitalism.
Sleaze is integral to India's growth, and one of its main drivers. The growth is skewed. Agriculture has stagnated, per capita food consumption has fallen, 200,000 indebted farmers have committed suicide. Industry has grown sluggishly and only forms about one-fourth of GDP. But services have boomed. The highest growth sectors are property, construction, telecoms and road transport � not IT. Capital accumulates through the privatisation of natural resources and dispossession of whole communities. In all these sectors, and in mining and metallurgical production, what counts is privileged access to natural resources and the national commons, most critically land, which is at the core of the government's discretionary powers.
"Liberalisation" has recast discretionary powers and allowed a new business-politics relationship to develop. Behind each of India's new billionaires is political patronage. Here lies the underbelly of India's growth: using crony-capitalist influence to corner mining leases, property development rights, construction permits and airwaves. It is not the free market, but manipulation and distortion, that propels growth.
One part of the seamy side of India's growth is well-known: persistent poverty, social bondage and economic servitude. The Radia tapes highlight another: sleaze and collusive business-politics relations that mock transparency, accountability, democratic policy-making and the public interest.
more...
mirage
08-06 09:28 AM
Rolling floods,
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
hair Creative Anti-smoking Ads
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.
more...
GCOP
07-14 10:53 AM
I did not mention anything like that. Just a request to allocate some Visa Numbers to EB-3 (India), which is retrogressed in 2001 since many years. I modified that format letter.
Did you mentiopn like Phani_6 that your lawyer filed Eb3 on advice from DOL inspite of you qualifying for Eb2?
Did you mentiopn like Phani_6 that your lawyer filed Eb3 on advice from DOL inspite of you qualifying for Eb2?
hot Paek found that ads were
Mahatma
10-02 09:10 AM
Dear Ivians,
I have not read all the mails. However, I want to express very naive thoughts (without a reading bias from previous mails) for now. I might reconsider some notions by the weekend until I am satisfied.
I have studied Obama, CIR and immigrants plights all these years. Here is what I think could be positive:
Obama is the kind of leader whao gets at the bottom the issues and tries to do the right thing (Watch Clinton's Florida speech, Oct 01, 2008 as to why he likes Obama!). He has the leadership skills and the strength of character to sway enough votes for any legislation including CIR. To me, so far he has shown Lincolnian charm. He is a serious guy who wants to do the right thing.
He would try to balance middle class american families and unemployment situation. When close to half a millions jobs are lost, it is illconceivable for anybody to push for immigration reform eventhough we may be on the right side of justice and victim of broken system.
There may be some tough situations for immigrants such as less outsourcing, american worker priority and other programs to promote STEM within the company. However, he will be the person to stand up for plights of tech workers. He understands the need and benefits of tech-immigration. As far as I know, his voting for H1 and CIR has been positive. It will be Obama and not someone elase whao will decide the policy. Durbin might tie the loose ends.
My feeling is this: Let us trust this man. Explain to him through IV and any other channels our problems and how it impacts present and future of America. If we could successfully argue (by all pure means) for a "A business model where tech-immigrants bring benefits and rate of returns in a much higher and assured fashion than the stock market", we could win this debate.
We are dealing with reasonable, smart and patriotic people. We need to continue to explore better methods to effectively communicate and win the deal. It is all about intellectual exercise to win a deal....
It is always prudent to have back up plans, however, it should not distract us too much.
haven't we agreed that GC is only worth so much and we do not want to have our life hostage to GC. At the same time, timely GC status gives better control of our career and discharging our family obliations. Sooner is better. However, we could do only so much.
Let us continue to do our best and hopefully with a new administration, we would learn new equations.
I trust in the ability of IV and IV-sympathetic constituencies to bring us deserved reward and recognition sooner rather than later.
Staying positive, continuing to learn (lobbying and swaying), adapting to the environment (what are the business needs of main street and wall street and how leaders perceive those) and doing our best (use best of our minds and achess game of life.....a special gift of God to Indians and others) and learn to be happy.
Remember, this is the first stroke of my pen.... I might revisit and reconsider some thoughts based on what most others are thinking.
I have not read all the mails. However, I want to express very naive thoughts (without a reading bias from previous mails) for now. I might reconsider some notions by the weekend until I am satisfied.
I have studied Obama, CIR and immigrants plights all these years. Here is what I think could be positive:
Obama is the kind of leader whao gets at the bottom the issues and tries to do the right thing (Watch Clinton's Florida speech, Oct 01, 2008 as to why he likes Obama!). He has the leadership skills and the strength of character to sway enough votes for any legislation including CIR. To me, so far he has shown Lincolnian charm. He is a serious guy who wants to do the right thing.
He would try to balance middle class american families and unemployment situation. When close to half a millions jobs are lost, it is illconceivable for anybody to push for immigration reform eventhough we may be on the right side of justice and victim of broken system.
There may be some tough situations for immigrants such as less outsourcing, american worker priority and other programs to promote STEM within the company. However, he will be the person to stand up for plights of tech workers. He understands the need and benefits of tech-immigration. As far as I know, his voting for H1 and CIR has been positive. It will be Obama and not someone elase whao will decide the policy. Durbin might tie the loose ends.
My feeling is this: Let us trust this man. Explain to him through IV and any other channels our problems and how it impacts present and future of America. If we could successfully argue (by all pure means) for a "A business model where tech-immigrants bring benefits and rate of returns in a much higher and assured fashion than the stock market", we could win this debate.
We are dealing with reasonable, smart and patriotic people. We need to continue to explore better methods to effectively communicate and win the deal. It is all about intellectual exercise to win a deal....
It is always prudent to have back up plans, however, it should not distract us too much.
haven't we agreed that GC is only worth so much and we do not want to have our life hostage to GC. At the same time, timely GC status gives better control of our career and discharging our family obliations. Sooner is better. However, we could do only so much.
Let us continue to do our best and hopefully with a new administration, we would learn new equations.
I trust in the ability of IV and IV-sympathetic constituencies to bring us deserved reward and recognition sooner rather than later.
Staying positive, continuing to learn (lobbying and swaying), adapting to the environment (what are the business needs of main street and wall street and how leaders perceive those) and doing our best (use best of our minds and achess game of life.....a special gift of God to Indians and others) and learn to be happy.
Remember, this is the first stroke of my pen.... I might revisit and reconsider some thoughts based on what most others are thinking.
more...
house Title: N.A.B. ASKED TO MODIFY TV TOBACCO ADVERTISING Src: Loc: 0061-1069
Macaca
07-08 09:04 AM
I have a .pdf file as to how the 485 files are processed right from the time we mail the packets until they r adjucticated..it is from ilw.com.
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
tattoo Health warnings and images on
gimme_GC2006
03-23 02:19 PM
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
more...
pictures PHASE OUT TV CIGARETTE COMMERCIALS Src: Loc: 0061-0298 ID: 14122 Title:
Macaca
12-30 06:23 PM
India-China Relations: It’s the economy, and no one’s stupid (http://idsa.in/system/files/IB_IndiaChinaRelations.pdf) By Joe Thomas Karackattu | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
dresses BEARD, Anti - Smoking Message,
logiclife
04-12 04:54 PM
Many/most of us here have worked like crazy dogs most of lives, followed the rules, and played by the book. "Everyone" does not have your cavalier attitude towards truth.
My problem is not with consultants or nurses or doctors or magicians or whoever else is in line. My problem is with those who claim to be legal aliens but who routinely break the rules (by indulging in kickback schemes like splitting their salary with their employer).
IV is a community of/for legal aliens wanting to become legal immigrants. Rule-breakers and others don't belong here; just because one hasn't been caught cheating the system doesn't mean one is legal.
There are thousands of real estate agents who charge 3% commission for sale of homes. Buyer's agent gets 3% and seller's agent gets 3%. It takes a total of 6% in commissions of real estate agents when you sell your house.
Of those 3% commission that each agents get, the pass on 1% to the agency. Like if a Remax or century 21 agent gets $3000 in commission, he/she has to give $1000 to the agency and keep $2000.
SO going by that principle, "kickbacks" as you would call it, would not be legal? Right?
Everywhere, a portion of revenue, if the employee generates revenue for the employer goes to employer. That's how employer keeps his lights on and feeds his/her family.
Now there are some who exploit this to their advantage. And that should be fixed. One way to fix it is to limit certain holds and loosen the grip of employers on the greencards petition of employees. Completely destroying the consulting business is not the answer to that as this bill tries to do.
If you are working "Like a dog" then you should get paid overtime for anything beyond 40 hours. Its a part of negotiation and its your responsibility to negotiate that with your employer before joining the project.
My problem is not with consultants or nurses or doctors or magicians or whoever else is in line. My problem is with those who claim to be legal aliens but who routinely break the rules (by indulging in kickback schemes like splitting their salary with their employer).
IV is a community of/for legal aliens wanting to become legal immigrants. Rule-breakers and others don't belong here; just because one hasn't been caught cheating the system doesn't mean one is legal.
There are thousands of real estate agents who charge 3% commission for sale of homes. Buyer's agent gets 3% and seller's agent gets 3%. It takes a total of 6% in commissions of real estate agents when you sell your house.
Of those 3% commission that each agents get, the pass on 1% to the agency. Like if a Remax or century 21 agent gets $3000 in commission, he/she has to give $1000 to the agency and keep $2000.
SO going by that principle, "kickbacks" as you would call it, would not be legal? Right?
Everywhere, a portion of revenue, if the employee generates revenue for the employer goes to employer. That's how employer keeps his lights on and feeds his/her family.
Now there are some who exploit this to their advantage. And that should be fixed. One way to fix it is to limit certain holds and loosen the grip of employers on the greencards petition of employees. Completely destroying the consulting business is not the answer to that as this bill tries to do.
If you are working "Like a dog" then you should get paid overtime for anything beyond 40 hours. Its a part of negotiation and its your responsibility to negotiate that with your employer before joining the project.
more...
makeup smoking ads on tv,
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:39 AM
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
girlfriend Television and radio
rockstart
07-14 08:28 AM
In the letter Phani mentions DOL asked companies to file EB3 instead of EB2 because of slow economy in 2001-2002. Is there any official communication regarding this? According to my understanding of the process and rules. It is job requirement that drives the labor category (EB2 or EB3). Most jobs require bachelors degree with some experience and hence are classified as EB3. There are other jobs that need more skills ( according to employer and endorsed by DOL) which also demand little more salary. These get qualified as EB2 and then there are speacialist jobs that require very highly qualified people which are EB1. Its employers responsiblity to convince the DOL in labor and I140 stage that he needs a guy for a specialist job (EB2) and that he can afford to pay the candidate. Whether economy is slow or Fast if as an employer I have the money to pay the candidate and I have a need for his skills I can file and definately get my EB2 approved. I think what happened in 2001 was since economy was slow and companies were not doing great financially the lawyers must have cautioned the employers against filing EB2 since DOL could audit it and if comapnies are not doing good they might not be able to justify the Eb2 salaries. That is my guess please correct me if I am wrong. DOL will never advice companies to file EB2 or EB3 their job is to validate the job requirement A2P and Candidates qualifications.
hairstyles ads from children#39;s TV
485Mbe4001
10-01 05:25 PM
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
Barack Obama on Immigration
Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)
America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants
For all the noise and anger that too often surrounds the immigration debate, America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants. They have come here for the same reason that families have always come here--for the hope that in America, they could build a better life for themselves and their families. Like the waves of immigrants that came before them and the Hispanic Americans whose families have been here for generations, the recent arrival of Latino immigrants will only enrich our country.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
We need comprehensive reform, like McCain used to support
Senator McCain used to offer change on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he's said he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.
If we are going to solve the challenges we face, you need a President who will pursue genuine solutions day in and day out. And that is my commitment to you.
We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
Recognize the humanity of immigrants: Todos somos Americanos
Ultimately, the danger to the American way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of [immigrants]--if we withhold from them the opportunities we take for granted, and create a servant class in our midst.
More broadly, the danger will come if we continue to stand idly by as the gap between Wall Street and Main Street grows, as Washington grows more out of touch, and as America grows more unequal. Because America can only prosper when all Americans prosper--brown, black, white, Asian, and Native American. That's the idea that lies at the heart of my campaign, and that's the idea that will lie at the heart of my presidency. Because we are all Americans. Todos somos Americanos. And in this country, we rise and fall together.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
GovWatch: Anti-immigrants fuel xenophobia, but 45% increase
Barack Obama said at a Palm Beach fundraiser on May 22, "A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year. If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."
Obama needs to be more careful in his use of statistics. If he is going to blame Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh for "ginning up" hate crimes against Hispanics, he needs solid data to back up his allegation. The hate crimes statistics are wildly inaccurate--and a subsequent modified claim provided by his campaign was also off the mark.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has repeatedly made use of flawed statistics, but there is no excuse for resorting to equally flawed data to attack Dobbs and his ilk. Hate crime offenses against Latinos rose from 529 in 2003 to 770 in 2006, a total increase over three years of about 45% [not even closed to double].
Source: GovWatch on 2008: Washington Post analysis Jun 4, 2008
Encourage every student to learn a second language
Q: Is there any down side to the US becoming a bilingual nation?
A: It is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. Every student should be learning a second language, because when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind. If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America's continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that's something frankly where we've fallen behind. Foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform
We need stronger border security. We are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage and not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed. We have to make sure that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against. We have to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology
Q: Do you think your vote on the border fence or the implementation of it was wrong?
A: The key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. The Bush administration is not real good at listening. I will reverse that policy. There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. Having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping
It is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. What's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. It's discriminatory against people who have good character, but don't have the money. We've got to fix that. We have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. The problem is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a US-Mexican relationship. Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical
The American people want fairness, want justice. They recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back. But what they do also want is some order to the process. We're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers. That's why comprehensive reform is so important. Something that we can do immediately that is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education. I do not want two classes of citizens in this country. I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
and so on .....
Barack Obama on Immigration
Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)
America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants
For all the noise and anger that too often surrounds the immigration debate, America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants. They have come here for the same reason that families have always come here--for the hope that in America, they could build a better life for themselves and their families. Like the waves of immigrants that came before them and the Hispanic Americans whose families have been here for generations, the recent arrival of Latino immigrants will only enrich our country.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
We need comprehensive reform, like McCain used to support
Senator McCain used to offer change on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he's said he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.
If we are going to solve the challenges we face, you need a President who will pursue genuine solutions day in and day out. And that is my commitment to you.
We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
Recognize the humanity of immigrants: Todos somos Americanos
Ultimately, the danger to the American way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of [immigrants]--if we withhold from them the opportunities we take for granted, and create a servant class in our midst.
More broadly, the danger will come if we continue to stand idly by as the gap between Wall Street and Main Street grows, as Washington grows more out of touch, and as America grows more unequal. Because America can only prosper when all Americans prosper--brown, black, white, Asian, and Native American. That's the idea that lies at the heart of my campaign, and that's the idea that will lie at the heart of my presidency. Because we are all Americans. Todos somos Americanos. And in this country, we rise and fall together.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
GovWatch: Anti-immigrants fuel xenophobia, but 45% increase
Barack Obama said at a Palm Beach fundraiser on May 22, "A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year. If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."
Obama needs to be more careful in his use of statistics. If he is going to blame Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh for "ginning up" hate crimes against Hispanics, he needs solid data to back up his allegation. The hate crimes statistics are wildly inaccurate--and a subsequent modified claim provided by his campaign was also off the mark.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has repeatedly made use of flawed statistics, but there is no excuse for resorting to equally flawed data to attack Dobbs and his ilk. Hate crime offenses against Latinos rose from 529 in 2003 to 770 in 2006, a total increase over three years of about 45% [not even closed to double].
Source: GovWatch on 2008: Washington Post analysis Jun 4, 2008
Encourage every student to learn a second language
Q: Is there any down side to the US becoming a bilingual nation?
A: It is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. Every student should be learning a second language, because when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind. If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America's continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that's something frankly where we've fallen behind. Foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform
We need stronger border security. We are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage and not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed. We have to make sure that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against. We have to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology
Q: Do you think your vote on the border fence or the implementation of it was wrong?
A: The key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. The Bush administration is not real good at listening. I will reverse that policy. There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. Having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping
It is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. What's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. It's discriminatory against people who have good character, but don't have the money. We've got to fix that. We have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. The problem is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a US-Mexican relationship. Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical
The American people want fairness, want justice. They recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back. But what they do also want is some order to the process. We're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers. That's why comprehensive reform is so important. Something that we can do immediately that is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education. I do not want two classes of citizens in this country. I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
and so on .....
gclabor07
08-05 11:48 AM
Folks,
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
gc_check
04-07 07:42 PM
H1B program for sure needs to be reformed, a constructive reform, not the one we see in this bill now. Some of the items in bill would indirectly kill the program than reform it. I'm very concerned, given the current situation; the H1B numbers running out on the opening day itself, this bill might get some consideration and attention. At least if we manage a get a clause that allows people with approved I-140 or labour apply for AOS, even when the EB Visa numbers are not available will help many many members of this group. Atleast you can get an EAD and get out of this H1B mess...
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
Every one going through this process have a moral responsibility and have to do their part, Even if not part of the core, we need to atleast email, mail or call Senator/Congressmen office when required and contribute what you can to IV to help the folks who put in their precious time and work more or less full time on time, in spite having their own family and full time work.
No comments:
Post a Comment