Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
wallpaper Angled Memorial Flag Pole Base
pete
04-09 11:29 AM
Looks like everyone want to talk about their specific selfish advantages and ignore the problem on a whole if this bill passes.
You can say it whichever way you like. Isnt everybody looking for selfish gains?
A few months back somebody wanted info on labor substitution and the moderator took the man's side by saying we should all look for advantage and not worry about NAY sayers......
There is nothing selfish about this. Universities usually donot take short cuts. My job before while they were doing PERM was on monster.com for 11 months!!!The received tons of applications. Yes I can confidantly say they "did not find " a suitable candidate. The H1B visa is a favor granted to us and should not be misused. It also works in IVs advantage because it makes their agenda more solid:
WE ARE AGAINST MISUSE OF H1B AND WOULD LIKE GC REFORM.
Unlike we want H1B abuse to continue AND ALSO GC reform.
You can say it whichever way you like. Isnt everybody looking for selfish gains?
A few months back somebody wanted info on labor substitution and the moderator took the man's side by saying we should all look for advantage and not worry about NAY sayers......
There is nothing selfish about this. Universities usually donot take short cuts. My job before while they were doing PERM was on monster.com for 11 months!!!The received tons of applications. Yes I can confidantly say they "did not find " a suitable candidate. The H1B visa is a favor granted to us and should not be misused. It also works in IVs advantage because it makes their agenda more solid:
WE ARE AGAINST MISUSE OF H1B AND WOULD LIKE GC REFORM.
Unlike we want H1B abuse to continue AND ALSO GC reform.
Munna Bhai
08-03 06:10 AM
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
Hi United Nation,
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
Hi United Nation,
If AC21 is so difficult to use what about EAD?? Is all these apply to EAD too??
-M
2011 See larger image: flagpole base(flagpole stand,flagpole kit)
nojoke
04-14 03:02 PM
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
more...
javadeveloper
08-02 12:11 PM
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
ilwaiting
04-09 11:46 AM
Yes you are correct. Employee has nothing to do with the Abuse. More over most of the employers have nothing to do with the abuse as well. Lawmakers must get their facts straight before imposing such foolish laws.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
more...
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
2010 Flag Pole, Empire Telescopic
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
more...
SunnySurya
08-05 11:21 AM
You certainly made yourself very clear. You are the most logical person , I have ever come accross. :p
Labor substition was never yours to begin with...
EB porting..you are already in the queue...you change ur job..go through the rigours of GC ..ad ..wad and lose a pad of money...then "IF" you are lucky you can regain ur position in the queue.... and looking at the 140 backlogs..anyone attempting to port his PD will end up getting stuck in the muck..;-)
let me explain with example my friend:
there is a blond ahead of you in the line....and suddenly she gets a nature call..she goes does her thing and returns...and she wants to regain her rightful place...
now u my friend have a million dollar question: will u let her get back in the line in front of you...I bet u will...;-)
now replace that blond with a desi.. i am sure i know your answer..."tere baap ka line hai kya"...
so EB porting is possible only if you go through the rigours of stage 1 and 2...labor substition was a different animal..
i guess i made myself clear..;)
Labor substition was never yours to begin with...
EB porting..you are already in the queue...you change ur job..go through the rigours of GC ..ad ..wad and lose a pad of money...then "IF" you are lucky you can regain ur position in the queue.... and looking at the 140 backlogs..anyone attempting to port his PD will end up getting stuck in the muck..;-)
let me explain with example my friend:
there is a blond ahead of you in the line....and suddenly she gets a nature call..she goes does her thing and returns...and she wants to regain her rightful place...
now u my friend have a million dollar question: will u let her get back in the line in front of you...I bet u will...;-)
now replace that blond with a desi.. i am sure i know your answer..."tere baap ka line hai kya"...
so EB porting is possible only if you go through the rigours of stage 1 and 2...labor substition was a different animal..
i guess i made myself clear..;)
hair Flagpole Base Address Rock
mariner5555
03-23 11:14 PM
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
more...
adusumilli
08-05 02:18 PM
can some admin close this thread
hot Ceremonial Flagpole Bases
sledge_hammer
06-05 05:17 PM
Thanks for your comment!
If your other investment is going to be a CD, then you are better off putting down 20%. That 20% would also exempt you from any PMI you will have to pay if you only made 10% down. I assume you are going to have to pay PMI w/ the 10% loan, wouldn't you?
As for #8, "puddonhead" has rightly corrected me; it should not have been included under expense.
I really am by no means competent to give financial advice. So please take my opinion with a grain of salt :D
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If your other investment is going to be a CD, then you are better off putting down 20%. That 20% would also exempt you from any PMI you will have to pay if you only made 10% down. I assume you are going to have to pay PMI w/ the 10% loan, wouldn't you?
As for #8, "puddonhead" has rightly corrected me; it should not have been included under expense.
I really am by no means competent to give financial advice. So please take my opinion with a grain of salt :D
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
more...
house display: Flag Pole Empire Side
unseenguy
06-26 05:26 PM
Here is my strategy:
Keep an eye on the interest rates, if they are going to cross, 6.5% lock them in immediately and monitor for 90 days.
1) Wait for home prices to fall further or not increase (After the economic stimulus timeline has passed), sales may slump again
2) Use this time to stay in a modest short term apartment/condo/townhome and save 1500 a month to build a large downpayment when you get GC.
3) Use large downpayment to lower your monthly payment.
4) use lowered monthly payments to make additional payments towards your principal thus further reducing the payments on mortgage interest.
Hence in 2-3 years you can go for a bigger house with lower mortgage and quicker payoff since prices are not rising now.
Keep an eye on the interest rates, if they are going to cross, 6.5% lock them in immediately and monitor for 90 days.
1) Wait for home prices to fall further or not increase (After the economic stimulus timeline has passed), sales may slump again
2) Use this time to stay in a modest short term apartment/condo/townhome and save 1500 a month to build a large downpayment when you get GC.
3) Use large downpayment to lower your monthly payment.
4) use lowered monthly payments to make additional payments towards your principal thus further reducing the payments on mortgage interest.
Hence in 2-3 years you can go for a bigger house with lower mortgage and quicker payoff since prices are not rising now.
tattoo Water Filled Base Flag Pole
logiclife
11-15 10:55 AM
Today's entire column written by Lou Dobbs is something that our dear Lou is really familiar with.
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
more...
pictures display: Flag Pole Empire Side
sc3
07-14 12:57 PM
USCIS has not changed any law they have re-interpreted an existing law which was unclear and some folks have said that CIS interprets laws based on inputs from congress to understand the intent behind the law. If you complain to CIS that you have changed law they will send you a polite reply that we do not make any laws we just implement it.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
dresses Memorial Flag Pole Base with
Sunx_2004
07-11 12:23 PM
I'll tell you how I did it:
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
Thanks
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
Thanks
more...
makeup Swooper Flag amp; Pole Kit
Macaca
12-29 07:31 PM
Suicides in India Revealing How Men Made a Mess of Microcredit (http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-LE3PZI1A1I4H01-0F7HGVAGBBTBG4G4S2I5PL8TJ5) By Yoolim Lee and Ruth David | Bloomberg
Tanda Srinivas was lounging in the yard of his two-room house in the southern Indian village of Mondrai shortly after noon on Oct. 28 when his wife, Shobha, burst out of the door covered in flames and screaming for help.
The 30-year-old mother of two boys had poured 2 liters of kerosene on herself and lit a match. The couple had argued bitterly the day before over how they would repay multiple loans, including those from microlenders who had lent small sums to dozens of villagers, says Venkateshwarlu Masram, a doctor who called for the ambulance.
Shobha, head of several groups of women borrowers, was being pressured to pay interest on her 12,000 rupee ($265) loan. Lenders also were demanding that she cover for the other women, even though the state had restricted microfinance activities two weeks earlier, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its February issue.
When Srinivas, 35, tried to snuff out the flames with a blanket, his polyester clothes caught fire. Within three days, both parents were dead, leaving their sons orphans.
Now, on this November morning, the boys� ailing 70-year-old grandfather and blind grandmother say they are caring for Aravind, 10, and Upender, 13, in the farming village where many men earn a living gathering palm extract to make alcoholic beverages.
None of the boys� relatives can support them full time, says their 60-year-old grandmother, Saiamma, breaking into tears.
India�s Microlending Hub
The horrific scene in Mondrai, 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the city of Warangal, has played out in dozens of ways across Andhra Pradesh, India�s fifth-largest state by area and the site of about a third of the country�s $5.3 billion in microfinance loans as of Sept. 30.
More than 70 people committed suicide in the state from March 1 to Nov. 19 to escape payments or end the agonies their debt had triggered, according to the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, a government agency that compiled the data on the microfinance-related deaths from police and press reports.
Andhra Pradesh, where three-quarters of the 76 million people live in rural areas, suffered a total of 14,364 suicide cases in the first nine months of 2010, according to state police.
A growing number of microfinance-related deaths spurred the state to clamp down on collection practices in mid-October, says Reddy Subrahmanyam, principal secretary for rural development.
�Every life is important,� he says.
Perverse Turn
On Nov. 8, police arrested two managers of lender Share Microfin Ltd. on allegations of abetting another suicide, this one of a 22-year-old mother. Share Microfin didn�t respond to requests for comment on this story.
As India struggles to provide decent education, health care and jobs to millions still locked in poverty, microlending -- the loaning of small sums to the world�s neediest people to help them earn a living -- has taken a perverse turn.
Microcredit has become �Walmartized� by unrestrained selling of cheap products to the poor, says Malcolm Harper, chairman of ratings company Micro-Credit Ratings International Ltd. in Gurgaon, India.
�Selling debt is like selling drugs,� says Harper, 75, the author of more than 20 books on microfinance and other topics. �Selling debt to illiterate women in Andhra Pradesh, you�ve got to be a lot more responsible.�
Opposite Effect
K. Venkat Narayana, an economics professor at Kakatiya University in Warangal, has studied how microfinance lenders persuaded groups of women to borrow.
�Microfinance was supposed to empower women,� he says. �Microfinance guys reversed the social and economic progress, and these women ended up becoming slaves.�
India�s booming microlending industry is part of a global phenomenon that began as a charitable movement but now attracts private capital seeking growth and high returns.
Banco Compartamos SA, a former nonprofit that�s now the largest lender to Mexico�s working poor, raised about $467 million in its 2007 initial public offering. The August IPO of SKS Microfinance Ltd., India�s biggest microlender, drew further attention to the industry.
SKS began operating in 1998 as a nongovernmental organization led by Vikram Akula, 42, an Indian-American with a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago.
The company raised 16.3 billion rupees by selling 16.8 million shares at 985 rupees each. SKS shares peaked at 1,404.85 rupees on Sept. 15. As of Dec. 28, they�d fallen to 652.85 rupees.
Andhra Pradesh Crisis
On Oct. 15, the government of Andhra Pradesh imposed restrictions that bar microlenders� collection agents from visiting borrowers and required companies to get local authorities� approval for new loans. The rules have crippled lending and repayments. Loan collection levels in the state have dropped to less than 20 percent from 98 percent previously, according to an industry group.
The upheaval in Andhra Pradesh is a long way from the vision of Muhammad Yunus.
The former economics professor won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his pioneering work in Bangladesh providing small sums to entrepreneurs too poor to get bank loans.
Yunus, 70, discovered more than three decades ago that when you lend money to women in poverty, they can begin to earn a living, and most of them will pay you back.
Yunus started the Grameen Bank Project in 1976 to extend banking services to the poor. Since then, it has lent $9.87 billion and recovered $8.76 billion; 97 percent of its 8.33 million borrowers are female.
�Wrong Direction�
Yunus says he�s not against making a profit. But he denounces firms that seek windfalls and pervert the original intent of microfinance: helping the poor.
The rule of thumb for a loan should be the cost of funds plus 10 percent, he says.
�Commercialization is the wrong direction,� Yunus says, speaking in a telephone interview from Bangladesh�s capital of Dhaka. �An initial public offering is the triggering point for making a lot of money personally as well as for the company and shareholders.�
David Gibbons, chairman of Cashpor Micro Credit, a nonprofit microlender to the poorest women in India�s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar states, says public, for-profit lenders face a conflict.
�They have to decide between the interests of their customers and interests of their investors,� he says.
Tanda Srinivas was lounging in the yard of his two-room house in the southern Indian village of Mondrai shortly after noon on Oct. 28 when his wife, Shobha, burst out of the door covered in flames and screaming for help.
The 30-year-old mother of two boys had poured 2 liters of kerosene on herself and lit a match. The couple had argued bitterly the day before over how they would repay multiple loans, including those from microlenders who had lent small sums to dozens of villagers, says Venkateshwarlu Masram, a doctor who called for the ambulance.
Shobha, head of several groups of women borrowers, was being pressured to pay interest on her 12,000 rupee ($265) loan. Lenders also were demanding that she cover for the other women, even though the state had restricted microfinance activities two weeks earlier, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its February issue.
When Srinivas, 35, tried to snuff out the flames with a blanket, his polyester clothes caught fire. Within three days, both parents were dead, leaving their sons orphans.
Now, on this November morning, the boys� ailing 70-year-old grandfather and blind grandmother say they are caring for Aravind, 10, and Upender, 13, in the farming village where many men earn a living gathering palm extract to make alcoholic beverages.
None of the boys� relatives can support them full time, says their 60-year-old grandmother, Saiamma, breaking into tears.
India�s Microlending Hub
The horrific scene in Mondrai, 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the city of Warangal, has played out in dozens of ways across Andhra Pradesh, India�s fifth-largest state by area and the site of about a third of the country�s $5.3 billion in microfinance loans as of Sept. 30.
More than 70 people committed suicide in the state from March 1 to Nov. 19 to escape payments or end the agonies their debt had triggered, according to the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, a government agency that compiled the data on the microfinance-related deaths from police and press reports.
Andhra Pradesh, where three-quarters of the 76 million people live in rural areas, suffered a total of 14,364 suicide cases in the first nine months of 2010, according to state police.
A growing number of microfinance-related deaths spurred the state to clamp down on collection practices in mid-October, says Reddy Subrahmanyam, principal secretary for rural development.
�Every life is important,� he says.
Perverse Turn
On Nov. 8, police arrested two managers of lender Share Microfin Ltd. on allegations of abetting another suicide, this one of a 22-year-old mother. Share Microfin didn�t respond to requests for comment on this story.
As India struggles to provide decent education, health care and jobs to millions still locked in poverty, microlending -- the loaning of small sums to the world�s neediest people to help them earn a living -- has taken a perverse turn.
Microcredit has become �Walmartized� by unrestrained selling of cheap products to the poor, says Malcolm Harper, chairman of ratings company Micro-Credit Ratings International Ltd. in Gurgaon, India.
�Selling debt is like selling drugs,� says Harper, 75, the author of more than 20 books on microfinance and other topics. �Selling debt to illiterate women in Andhra Pradesh, you�ve got to be a lot more responsible.�
Opposite Effect
K. Venkat Narayana, an economics professor at Kakatiya University in Warangal, has studied how microfinance lenders persuaded groups of women to borrow.
�Microfinance was supposed to empower women,� he says. �Microfinance guys reversed the social and economic progress, and these women ended up becoming slaves.�
India�s booming microlending industry is part of a global phenomenon that began as a charitable movement but now attracts private capital seeking growth and high returns.
Banco Compartamos SA, a former nonprofit that�s now the largest lender to Mexico�s working poor, raised about $467 million in its 2007 initial public offering. The August IPO of SKS Microfinance Ltd., India�s biggest microlender, drew further attention to the industry.
SKS began operating in 1998 as a nongovernmental organization led by Vikram Akula, 42, an Indian-American with a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago.
The company raised 16.3 billion rupees by selling 16.8 million shares at 985 rupees each. SKS shares peaked at 1,404.85 rupees on Sept. 15. As of Dec. 28, they�d fallen to 652.85 rupees.
Andhra Pradesh Crisis
On Oct. 15, the government of Andhra Pradesh imposed restrictions that bar microlenders� collection agents from visiting borrowers and required companies to get local authorities� approval for new loans. The rules have crippled lending and repayments. Loan collection levels in the state have dropped to less than 20 percent from 98 percent previously, according to an industry group.
The upheaval in Andhra Pradesh is a long way from the vision of Muhammad Yunus.
The former economics professor won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his pioneering work in Bangladesh providing small sums to entrepreneurs too poor to get bank loans.
Yunus, 70, discovered more than three decades ago that when you lend money to women in poverty, they can begin to earn a living, and most of them will pay you back.
Yunus started the Grameen Bank Project in 1976 to extend banking services to the poor. Since then, it has lent $9.87 billion and recovered $8.76 billion; 97 percent of its 8.33 million borrowers are female.
�Wrong Direction�
Yunus says he�s not against making a profit. But he denounces firms that seek windfalls and pervert the original intent of microfinance: helping the poor.
The rule of thumb for a loan should be the cost of funds plus 10 percent, he says.
�Commercialization is the wrong direction,� Yunus says, speaking in a telephone interview from Bangladesh�s capital of Dhaka. �An initial public offering is the triggering point for making a lot of money personally as well as for the company and shareholders.�
David Gibbons, chairman of Cashpor Micro Credit, a nonprofit microlender to the poorest women in India�s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar states, says public, for-profit lenders face a conflict.
�They have to decide between the interests of their customers and interests of their investors,� he says.
girlfriend Centennial Flag Pole Base
RNGC
10-01 06:33 PM
I am the only employee working for my H1 sponsoring company for past 9 years! I always worked for huge clients and everyplace I worked, I was offered a full time job, but my immigration status prevented from taking those offers. My H1 sponsoring company have been benefitting all these years because of the broken legal immigration system and I am just working as hard as I can but someone else (my H1 sponsoring company) benefits from that.
We may need to hold another massive rally in DC to highlight our cause.
We may need to hold another massive rally in DC to highlight our cause.
hairstyles beach flag pole
jonty_11
08-02 12:07 PM
Possibly.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
However; there are many things that uscis asks for that they are hinging on the grayest of gray areas to get at other things.
Examples:
You don't need to submit tax returns with 485. However, they ask in RFE sometimes. Why do they do that?
USCIS asks for photos of office in h-1b rfe's. There is nothing in the law/regulations stating they are supposed to ask for it.
There is many examples where uscis/dos ask for things that are not required in the law/regulations. However; a lot of these types of evidence they ask for is for "intent", looking for inconsistencies, trying to look at the resonability of information...
Long back when I used to just read memos/laws; it looked pretty straightforward. However; uscis uses the grayest of gray areas to their benefit, not your's.
Department of state for every visa except h and L assume by default that a person has intention of immigrating. The onus is on us to show that we are not going to do that. Unfortunately, uscis is turning the same way in adjudicating of benefits. They seem to think that everyone is playing with the system and they in turn are becoming very difficult.
I agree...with UN..however ...their laggardness in turn is also playing with the system...unfortunately...there is no one to take them to task...
Only when they managed something like July VB fiasco ...did it raise eyebrows.
indio0617
09-26 11:17 AM
though its very tempting to support obama with all his elequent talk, I think action speaks louder than words. he has absolutely no history of doing anything in the senate, and has not worked in a bi-partisan way with the republicans to pass any thing. do you think all of a sudden as prez he's going to get things done. further his stance on matters changes as the wind blows. meanwhile mccain has a history of making things happen, even sometimes going against his party. Dem will be more interested in helping the illegals become permanent, and not the legals 'coz their sights are on the vote banks. reps in general are more pro-business, and will favor the legal as opposed to illegals. of course there are some who are against.
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
You hit it right on the nail ! Very precisely put. Read between the lines and do not get carried away by 'eloquent' speeches. Deeds are stronger than words. Look at how the democratic agenda is framed. It has never been in favor of business, enterprise or innovation. Putting things into respective Obama & co will suffocate us with all the socialist agenda and stagnating policies.
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
You hit it right on the nail ! Very precisely put. Read between the lines and do not get carried away by 'eloquent' speeches. Deeds are stronger than words. Look at how the democratic agenda is framed. It has never been in favor of business, enterprise or innovation. Putting things into respective Obama & co will suffocate us with all the socialist agenda and stagnating policies.
ita
07-14 11:24 AM
Wll support campaign for EB3 . Please let this happen.
Appreciate all the comments on how the initiative(s) won't work. But at the same time if they can in some way suggest what will work that will be great.
I'm sure not doing anything will be not be a right thing .
I do agree we have to make noice. Let's work on how to make effective noise.
My thoughts are running on Letter/Call campaigns.
Don't know anything about what should be done effectively.Else I would be posting it here.
But for sure I'll support initiative(s) for EB3-I.
Thank you.
Appreciate all the comments on how the initiative(s) won't work. But at the same time if they can in some way suggest what will work that will be great.
I'm sure not doing anything will be not be a right thing .
I do agree we have to make noice. Let's work on how to make effective noise.
My thoughts are running on Letter/Call campaigns.
Don't know anything about what should be done effectively.Else I would be posting it here.
But for sure I'll support initiative(s) for EB3-I.
Thank you.
