ssa
06-25 03:41 PM
Do you know a single well known rich guy that still rents (and owns zero real estate)? If you are so sure that you have the math right, go ahead and name some names!
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
wallpaper Mel Gibson arrives at a
sanju
04-07 01:54 PM
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
Let me guess, you work at a R&D facility, right? May be, looking for the best way to fit in your individual situation. No offense meant, however, I would request IV and its membership to have a bigger perspective in dealing whit this bill. Otherwise, 500,000 people will be systematically purged from US. And that includes most people waiting for their green cards.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
Let me guess, you work at a R&D facility, right? May be, looking for the best way to fit in your individual situation. No offense meant, however, I would request IV and its membership to have a bigger perspective in dealing whit this bill. Otherwise, 500,000 people will be systematically purged from US. And that includes most people waiting for their green cards.
chanduv23
09-26 08:26 AM
I am a big supporter of Obama and a big fan and am eagerly looking forward to see him as our next President of United States. As a legal highly skilled immigrant what can I expect? Well, not sure if I would see myself living here anymore. I have been in the green card queue for more than 8 years now and still waiting. Will Obama's administration do anything for people like me to help reduce backlog? I doubt such a thing will ever happen. I would see myself and people like me discouraged and start packing our bags and move on with life.
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
Why do I feel discouraged? If anything is going to happen for the immigrant community when Sen. Obama becomes the President, it is going to be in the lines of CIR 2007. There would be provisions to make illegal immigrants as legal and remove backlogs to family based quota whereas posing harsh restrictions on H1b visas and reducing Green Card quotas and scrap AC21 portability and try to experiment with some new kind of skilled immigration system.
The above is very evident based on the fact that Senator Durbin has been very hostile to EB immigrants. It is evident that Senator Durbin will make the calls when Senator Obama becomes the president.
Please post your opinions. This is a very important discussion. It is very important that the community see what is in store for us when the new Administration takes charge.
A lot of folks in the EB community are looking forward to 2009 thinking something will definitely happen. Yes, something will definitely happen - and that may not help us
2011 Mel Gibson
Rolling_Flood
07-14 02:05 AM
This person is such a slick sucker. Everyone, please read his previous posts. He was whining about how to apply in EB-2 and the timelines for I-140 approval etc. Then, he wanted to know whether he could go to school on an EAD.
In short, he is doing this EB-3 bullshit just to get maximum mileage out of this in his favor. Given a chance, he would jump ship to EB-2 and not give a damn about EB-3 India.
Expanding on these points, if you, the reader, are an EB-3 or ported to EB-2 and work in the oh-so-familiar IT bodyshops, go suck on those sour lemons.
How dare you fuck@#n compare yourselves to EB-2?
Cant you FUC@#N understand what the phrase "preference category" means????? go get a higher education, change employers, get an EB-2 the right way.
Stop this bullshit you have going on. I for one will write my own letters to ensure none of this EB-3 India whining nonsense gets any attention. I will also mobilize other EB-2 India and China folks i know, to do the same.
If that does not succeed, i will slap a lawsuit against any organization that attempts to twist the rules to imply EB-3 and EB-2 are the same skill level.
Let us see who wins here. In the interim, go suck on those sour lemons and work for your blood sucking desi employers. Serves you right for being lazy and not trying to help your lot before.
Will rot for 7 years in EB-3, but will not get a US MS/MBA/PhD, will not change to an EB-2 job, and then when EB-2 gains something, will cry and create a ruckus????? Go screw yourselves.
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
In short, he is doing this EB-3 bullshit just to get maximum mileage out of this in his favor. Given a chance, he would jump ship to EB-2 and not give a damn about EB-3 India.
Expanding on these points, if you, the reader, are an EB-3 or ported to EB-2 and work in the oh-so-familiar IT bodyshops, go suck on those sour lemons.
How dare you fuck@#n compare yourselves to EB-2?
Cant you FUC@#N understand what the phrase "preference category" means????? go get a higher education, change employers, get an EB-2 the right way.
Stop this bullshit you have going on. I for one will write my own letters to ensure none of this EB-3 India whining nonsense gets any attention. I will also mobilize other EB-2 India and China folks i know, to do the same.
If that does not succeed, i will slap a lawsuit against any organization that attempts to twist the rules to imply EB-3 and EB-2 are the same skill level.
Let us see who wins here. In the interim, go suck on those sour lemons and work for your blood sucking desi employers. Serves you right for being lazy and not trying to help your lot before.
Will rot for 7 years in EB-3, but will not get a US MS/MBA/PhD, will not change to an EB-2 job, and then when EB-2 gains something, will cry and create a ruckus????? Go screw yourselves.
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
more...
Macaca
12-30 07:04 PM
India expects quick solution to Iran payments issue (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53843720101230) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
jung.lee
04-05 06:07 PM
The analysis is interesting, but this much amount has already been written off considering 100% of option ARM, and alt-ARM will fail.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to connect the ARM reset schedule with write-offs at wall street firms. Instead, I was trying to point out that there will be increased number of foreclosures as those ARMs reset over the next 36 months.
The next phase of the logic is: increased foreclosures will lead to increased inventory, which leads to lower prices, which leads to still more foreclosures and "walk aways" (people -citizens- who just dont want to pay the high mortgages any more since it is way cheaper to rent). This leads to still lower prices. Prices will likely stabilize when it is cheaper to buy vs. rent. Right now that calculus is inverted. In many bubble areas (both coasts, at a minimum) you would pay significantly more to buy than to rent (2X or more per month with a conventional mortgage in some good areas).
On the whole, I will debate only on financial and rational points. I am not going to question someone's emotional position on "homeownership." It is too complicated to extract someone out of their strongly held beliefs about how it is better to pay your own mortgage than someone elses, etc. All that is hubris that is ingrained from 5+ years of abnormally strong rising prices.
Let us say that you have two kids, age 2 and 5. The 5 year old is entering kindergarten next fall. You decide to buy in a good school district this year. Since your main decision was based on school choice, let us say that your investment horizon is 16 years (the year your 2 year old will finish high school at age 18).
Let us further assume that you will buy a house at the price of $600,000 in Bergen County, with 20% down ($120,000) this summer. The terms of the loan are 30 year fixed, 5.75% APR. This loan payment alone is $2800 per month. On top of that you will be paying at least 1.5% of value in property taxes, around $9,000 per year, or around $750 per month. Insurance will cost you around $1500 - $2000 per year, or another $150 or so per month. So your total committed payments will be around $3,700 per month.
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Let us assume further that in Bergen county, you can rent something bigger and more comfortable than your 1200 sq ft apartment from a private party for around $2000. So your rental cost to house payment ratio is around 1.8X (3700/2000).
Let us say further that the market drops 30% conservatively (will likely be more), from today through bottom in 4 years. Your $600k house will be worth 30% less, i.e. $420,000. Your loan will still be worth around $450k. If you needed to sell at this point in time, with 6% selling cost, you will need to bring cash to closing as a seller i.e., you are screwed. At escrow, you will need to pay off the loan of $450k, and pay 6% closing costs, which means you need to bring $450k+$25k-$420k = $55,000 to closing.
So you stand to lose:
1. Your down payment of $120k
2. Your cash at closing if you sell in 4 years: $55k
3. Rental differential: 48 months X (3700 - 2000) = $81k
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
This is not a "nightmare scenario" but a very real one. It is happenning right now in many parts of the country, and is just now hitting the more populated areas of the two coasts. There is still more to come.
My 2 cents for you guys, desi bhais, please do what you need to do, but keep your eyes open. This time the downturn is very different from the business-investment related downturn that followed the dot com bust earlier this decade.
more...
H1B-GC
02-21 12:24 PM
But this *****(offensive word deleted) has 800,000 Viewers on his Show.Gets $6 Million From CNN and lives in a 300 Acre Home in Sussex County, New Jersey.:eek:
2010 Mel Gibson Celebrities attend
Macaca
04-08 07:55 AM
Some paras from Big money creates a new capital city (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/conclusion/index.html?hpid=topnews), By Robert G. Kaiser.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
more...
Refugee_New
01-07 10:50 AM
Refugee_New,
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
After getting my GC, i visited this forum many times, helped a couple of forum members on how to contact congressman, sent them the draft letter etc on how to approach Ombudsman, congressman etc. I took help from this forum and i will try to return my favor to this forum.
I highly regarded this forum, its core team and its members until "Mumbai attacked" thread was open. I knew that it will be a nasty thread and it will foment hatred towards one particular religion and its followers. And it did cause a lot of damage to members of one particular group including myself.
Core team didn't stop this. They didn't even reminded the rules and regulations of this forum. That led to IV turning into HIV. This is not the right forum to discuss about politics especially war/terrorism etc. I don't know if IV will make it as a policy.
I created this thread just to remind people that there are so many ruthless people/group/organization around the world that kill innocents mercilessly. I didn't create this thread to rally support for any particular group or speak against any particular faith or any particular country.
I could have started this thread when the killing began two weeks back but i didn't. I started this when innocent school kids were massacred using missles and later it was justified. There are still so many heartless/mindless members sitting and supporting/justifying this brutal killing.
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
After getting my GC, i visited this forum many times, helped a couple of forum members on how to contact congressman, sent them the draft letter etc on how to approach Ombudsman, congressman etc. I took help from this forum and i will try to return my favor to this forum.
I highly regarded this forum, its core team and its members until "Mumbai attacked" thread was open. I knew that it will be a nasty thread and it will foment hatred towards one particular religion and its followers. And it did cause a lot of damage to members of one particular group including myself.
Core team didn't stop this. They didn't even reminded the rules and regulations of this forum. That led to IV turning into HIV. This is not the right forum to discuss about politics especially war/terrorism etc. I don't know if IV will make it as a policy.
I created this thread just to remind people that there are so many ruthless people/group/organization around the world that kill innocents mercilessly. I didn't create this thread to rally support for any particular group or speak against any particular faith or any particular country.
I could have started this thread when the killing began two weeks back but i didn't. I started this when innocent school kids were massacred using missles and later it was justified. There are still so many heartless/mindless members sitting and supporting/justifying this brutal killing.
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
hair The Festival will be opened by
Macaca
01-20 10:11 AM
Could Congress Be Waking Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19mann.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=42615f161ac4daf2&ei=5087%0A) By THOMAS E. MANN, MOLLY REYNOLDS and NIGEL HOLMES | NY Times, Jan 19
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it�s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate�s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress�s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats� narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising � when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year�s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
The chart below shows how the 110th Congress spent its time, and what it accomplished, in its first year under Democratic control, compared with its immediate predecessor and with the Republican Congress that took office in 1995.
more...
americandesi
08-09 02:03 PM
While most of us here have US Citizenship as their long term goal, they overlook that fact and focus on manipulating stuff to get a GC which might have severe consequences while applying for Naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn’t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn’t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is “Good Moral Character”. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn’t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn’t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don’t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn’t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn’t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is “Good Moral Character”. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn’t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn’t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don’t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
hot and Mel Gibson Cannes Film
chanduv23
03-25 01:48 PM
UN,
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
more...
house Cannes Film Festival Beaver
RDB
03-24 03:40 PM
And because of the huge population (of Indians), that 20% looks like a huge number!
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
tattoo Mel Gibson 64th Annual Cannes
alien2006
08-11 12:55 PM
dont know about lou's total viewership but every day his online polls have less than 15,000 respondents
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
The less we talk about his polls the better. Notice how every poll of his is swung to one end of the spectrum. His polls are the most ridiculous thing on the face of the planet.
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
The less we talk about his polls the better. Notice how every poll of his is swung to one end of the spectrum. His polls are the most ridiculous thing on the face of the planet.
more...
pictures and Mel Gibson Cannes Film
nojoke
04-14 11:57 AM
Most of the posts here are not relevant to the original topic of the thread � buying a home when 485 is pending.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
No body can predict how much it is going down exactly. But you can predict it is going down considerably.
No body can predict what the dollar value is going to be. So just spend all the money in the bank and enjoy your life while you can. No body can predict death for that matter. :confused: Just eat all you can and don't worry about your health. You need to have fun in life after all. Now what is wrong with my logic?
My point is that the house price is out of whack with income. I don't see the logic in why it would not go down. The whole mess is started because people started looking at houses as investment. Buying now and seeing the housing value drop won't be fun.
Whether you sell your house or not, it matters when you buy. You don't buy at the top of the bubble.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
No body can predict how much it is going down exactly. But you can predict it is going down considerably.
No body can predict what the dollar value is going to be. So just spend all the money in the bank and enjoy your life while you can. No body can predict death for that matter. :confused: Just eat all you can and don't worry about your health. You need to have fun in life after all. Now what is wrong with my logic?
My point is that the house price is out of whack with income. I don't see the logic in why it would not go down. The whole mess is started because people started looking at houses as investment. Buying now and seeing the housing value drop won't be fun.
Whether you sell your house or not, it matters when you buy. You don't buy at the top of the bubble.
dresses Mel Gibson Actors Mel Gibson
file485
07-07 09:41 PM
Hi Manu..
it must be living hell for you with this mess, we all pray for you to get some route out of this hell.
When did INS ask for your husband's pay stubs for 2000-2001? although he was filed as a derivative when did they ask you for this..?
pls post..
waiting for your response.
it must be living hell for you with this mess, we all pray for you to get some route out of this hell.
When did INS ask for your husband's pay stubs for 2000-2001? although he was filed as a derivative when did they ask you for this..?
pls post..
waiting for your response.
more...
makeup Mel Gibson Beaver
unitednations
08-08 08:00 PM
Hi Unitednations,
I have a little problem. I am a canadian citizen on H1b and used to commute across the border everyday. I work for Ford and every year during christmas we get a week long vacation. My contracting company does not pay me for the xmas break. So, I filed for unemployment compensation in michigan for that week - reason - temporary layoff (as a Canadian Citizen you can collect unemployment from michigan......thats what my US citizen colleagues do every year........Does this mean I was out of status for that week?....Can this cause my I-485 to get rejected? (I have done it twice in 5 years)
No.
Yeah; you wre out of status for those weeks that you took unemployment.
It shouldn't impact you since, you have been going in and out of the country. (ie., 245k).
It is very dangerous for companies to lay off workers and they take unemployment compensation. This is one of the reasons the mainstream companies don't do h-1b or greencard because there are complexities if people are being laid off and taking unemployment.
Are you still living in Canada. Not much advantage to it anymore. Looks like their prices haven't been adjusted downwards. It's probably more expensive now to live in Windsor/Toronto and to commute on a daily basis to Detroit.
I have a little problem. I am a canadian citizen on H1b and used to commute across the border everyday. I work for Ford and every year during christmas we get a week long vacation. My contracting company does not pay me for the xmas break. So, I filed for unemployment compensation in michigan for that week - reason - temporary layoff (as a Canadian Citizen you can collect unemployment from michigan......thats what my US citizen colleagues do every year........Does this mean I was out of status for that week?....Can this cause my I-485 to get rejected? (I have done it twice in 5 years)
No.
Yeah; you wre out of status for those weeks that you took unemployment.
It shouldn't impact you since, you have been going in and out of the country. (ie., 245k).
It is very dangerous for companies to lay off workers and they take unemployment compensation. This is one of the reasons the mainstream companies don't do h-1b or greencard because there are complexities if people are being laid off and taking unemployment.
Are you still living in Canada. Not much advantage to it anymore. Looks like their prices haven't been adjusted downwards. It's probably more expensive now to live in Windsor/Toronto and to commute on a daily basis to Detroit.
girlfriend Cannes 2011: Mel Gibson
Macaca
02-24 08:17 AM
Some paras from Democrats Offer Up Chairmen For Donors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301978.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum++and+john+solomon/), Washington Post Staff Writers, Saturday, February 24, 2007
Eager to shore up their fragile House and Senate majorities, congressional Democrats have enlisted their committee chairmen in an early blitz to bring millions of dollars into the party's coffers, culminating in a late-March event featuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 10 of the powerful panel chairs.
In the next 10 days alone, Democratic fundraisers will feature the chairmen of the House's financial services panel and the House and Senate tax-writing committees. Senate Democrats also plan a fundraising reception during a major gathering of Native Americans in the capital Tuesday evening, an event hosted by lobbyists and the political action committee for tribal casinos, including those Jack Abramoff was paid to represent.
The Democrats' push will culminate late next month when Pelosi and 10 of her chairmen huddle with donors at the Northern Virginia home of shopping-center developer Albert J. Dwoskin for an event to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The asking price for the March 21 dinner is $28,500 per couple, making it one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's highest-dollar fundraisers since new campaign finance limits were enacted in 2002.
In addition to Pelosi and Frank, other senior House Democrats slated to attend include John D. Dingell (Mich.) of the Energy and Commerce Committee, David R. Obey (Wis.) of the Appropriations Committee, Ike Skelton (Mo.) of the Armed Services Committee, John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) of the Judiciary Committee, George Miller (Calif.) of the Education and Labor Committee, and James L. Oberstar (Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The tactics are hardly new. Republicans aggressively used their committee chairmen -- and the promise of access to them -- to raise money from interest groups and lobbyists during the party's 12 years of congressional control. They tracked donations closely and pressed lobbying firms to hire GOP lobbyists through the "K Street Project," promising "intimate" issue briefings with the chairmen in return for big donations.
And the GOP is hardly sitting on the sidelines this year. Republicans are also using their top lawmakers on committees to haul in donations. Rep. John L. Mica (Fla.), the ranking Republican on Transportation and Infrastructure, is scheduled to headline a "transportation luncheon" fundraiser in coming days for fellow House Republican Jerry Moran (Kan.).
Eager to shore up their fragile House and Senate majorities, congressional Democrats have enlisted their committee chairmen in an early blitz to bring millions of dollars into the party's coffers, culminating in a late-March event featuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 10 of the powerful panel chairs.
In the next 10 days alone, Democratic fundraisers will feature the chairmen of the House's financial services panel and the House and Senate tax-writing committees. Senate Democrats also plan a fundraising reception during a major gathering of Native Americans in the capital Tuesday evening, an event hosted by lobbyists and the political action committee for tribal casinos, including those Jack Abramoff was paid to represent.
The Democrats' push will culminate late next month when Pelosi and 10 of her chairmen huddle with donors at the Northern Virginia home of shopping-center developer Albert J. Dwoskin for an event to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The asking price for the March 21 dinner is $28,500 per couple, making it one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's highest-dollar fundraisers since new campaign finance limits were enacted in 2002.
In addition to Pelosi and Frank, other senior House Democrats slated to attend include John D. Dingell (Mich.) of the Energy and Commerce Committee, David R. Obey (Wis.) of the Appropriations Committee, Ike Skelton (Mo.) of the Armed Services Committee, John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) of the Judiciary Committee, George Miller (Calif.) of the Education and Labor Committee, and James L. Oberstar (Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The tactics are hardly new. Republicans aggressively used their committee chairmen -- and the promise of access to them -- to raise money from interest groups and lobbyists during the party's 12 years of congressional control. They tracked donations closely and pressed lobbying firms to hire GOP lobbyists through the "K Street Project," promising "intimate" issue briefings with the chairmen in return for big donations.
And the GOP is hardly sitting on the sidelines this year. Republicans are also using their top lawmakers on committees to haul in donations. Rep. John L. Mica (Fla.), the ranking Republican on Transportation and Infrastructure, is scheduled to headline a "transportation luncheon" fundraiser in coming days for fellow House Republican Jerry Moran (Kan.).
hairstyles Mel Gibson hit the Cannes Film
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
senthil1
12-20 04:22 PM
Everybody are blaming Bush for his failure in Iraq and Economy. But Bush had a big acheivement in his period. After 9/11 he successfully prevented Terrorist attacks. That was most important acheivement and that was overshadowed by other failures.
Yes, everybody, all senators, wanted to teach these terrorists a lesson after 9/11.
Afghan war is good and Iraq war is bad. Why, because Iraqis didn't leave WMDs a.k.a nukes behind.
(A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons)
Now, Iraq war went bad, economy went bad (due to main street scamming the banks) and suddenly its all the fault of Mr. Bush.
Yes, everybody, all senators, wanted to teach these terrorists a lesson after 9/11.
Afghan war is good and Iraq war is bad. Why, because Iraqis didn't leave WMDs a.k.a nukes behind.
(A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons)
Now, Iraq war went bad, economy went bad (due to main street scamming the banks) and suddenly its all the fault of Mr. Bush.
nogc_noproblem
08-07 12:47 AM
After his day's sightseeing, an American touring Spain stopped at a local restaurant.
While sipping his wine, he noticed a sizzling, scrumptious looking platter being served at the next table. Not only did it look good, the smell was wonderful.
He asked the waiter, "What is that you just served?"
The waiter replied, " Ah senor, you have excellent taste! Those are bull's testicles from the bull fight this morning. A delicacy!"
The American, though momentarily daunted when he learned the origin of the dish said, "What the hell, I'm on vacation! Bring me an order!"
The waiter replied, "I am so sorry senor. There is only one serving a day since there is only one bull fight each morning. If you come early tomorrow and place your order, we will be sure to serve you this delicacy!"
The next morning the American returned and placed his order. That evening he was served the one and only special delicacy of the day. After a few bites, and inspecting the contents of his platter, he called to the waiter and said, "These are much, much smaller than the ones I saw you serve yesterday!"
The waiter promptly replied, "Si, senor!" Sometimes the bull wins!
While sipping his wine, he noticed a sizzling, scrumptious looking platter being served at the next table. Not only did it look good, the smell was wonderful.
He asked the waiter, "What is that you just served?"
The waiter replied, " Ah senor, you have excellent taste! Those are bull's testicles from the bull fight this morning. A delicacy!"
The American, though momentarily daunted when he learned the origin of the dish said, "What the hell, I'm on vacation! Bring me an order!"
The waiter replied, "I am so sorry senor. There is only one serving a day since there is only one bull fight each morning. If you come early tomorrow and place your order, we will be sure to serve you this delicacy!"
The next morning the American returned and placed his order. That evening he was served the one and only special delicacy of the day. After a few bites, and inspecting the contents of his platter, he called to the waiter and said, "These are much, much smaller than the ones I saw you serve yesterday!"
The waiter promptly replied, "Si, senor!" Sometimes the bull wins!
No comments:
Post a Comment