StuckInTheMuck
08-06 03:24 PM
haha haha..man, cant let this thread disappear!
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
wallpaper In the latest Kmart catalogue. G1 reissue Optimus Prime for $30.
gcisadawg
01-06 05:45 PM
Refugee New,
The focus has totally shifted from "Israeli occupation of Palestine" to "Terrorism". WHY? Blame it of Arafat, his successors and now Hamas.
See how other Arab countries are treating Palestinian Refugees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees
You can not blame everything on Jewish media. There is no point in you and me jumping up and down. The people that needs to realize should realize and focus on a workable solution.
Mumbai terrorism was discussed at length but you did not see the same level of discussion for LTTE's war with SLA. LTTE shares religion, language and ethnicity with lots of Indians but you DID NOT see the board discussing about that war a lot. What does that mean? It is people's nature to care only about things that impact them. There are so many stuffs that happens in world that doesn't impact all.
This is another example of Middle east getting much more media attention than war between LTTE and SLA. With all the media attention and world opinion favoring Palestine until 10 years ago, they should have gotten their own state long ago.
The focus has totally shifted from "Israeli occupation of Palestine" to "Terrorism". WHY? Blame it of Arafat, his successors and now Hamas.
See how other Arab countries are treating Palestinian Refugees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees
You can not blame everything on Jewish media. There is no point in you and me jumping up and down. The people that needs to realize should realize and focus on a workable solution.
Mumbai terrorism was discussed at length but you did not see the same level of discussion for LTTE's war with SLA. LTTE shares religion, language and ethnicity with lots of Indians but you DID NOT see the board discussing about that war a lot. What does that mean? It is people's nature to care only about things that impact them. There are so many stuffs that happens in world that doesn't impact all.
This is another example of Middle east getting much more media attention than war between LTTE and SLA. With all the media attention and world opinion favoring Palestine until 10 years ago, they should have gotten their own state long ago.
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:41 PM
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
2011 at Kmart#39;s new catalogue.
suavesandeep
06-20 08:07 PM
You actually nailed down exactly what i have been thinking...
Its just seems impossible to get a decent house which is not 25+ in Cupertino, Redwood shores etc ..And my gut feeling is these places the homes will never be affordable, they may lose some value but not much.
I have also been debating about Austin as an alternative. Again what field you work in also plays a big role in the decision. if you are a techie and work in a product based company Bay area has all the top companies you could wish to work for. Where as cities like Austin merely have satellite offices for these companies based in bay area. I guess if you work in the service industry you would have more choices to pick from. Plus reason to consider austin for me is that "Austin is very much like bay area" ... In that case i think why not live in Bay area itself :)
But yes if you are in bay area, Paying 700+ for a decent place just does not make sense even with all the rebates.
I am hoping my gut feeling is proven wrong :)
This is for sharing and suggesting your views, ( :)who are not opposing for buying a home now or in the near future and those who are staying at Bay Area, CA or similar places in US) where the medium home price is still looks like quite unaffordable :
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
Its just seems impossible to get a decent house which is not 25+ in Cupertino, Redwood shores etc ..And my gut feeling is these places the homes will never be affordable, they may lose some value but not much.
I have also been debating about Austin as an alternative. Again what field you work in also plays a big role in the decision. if you are a techie and work in a product based company Bay area has all the top companies you could wish to work for. Where as cities like Austin merely have satellite offices for these companies based in bay area. I guess if you work in the service industry you would have more choices to pick from. Plus reason to consider austin for me is that "Austin is very much like bay area" ... In that case i think why not live in Bay area itself :)
But yes if you are in bay area, Paying 700+ for a decent place just does not make sense even with all the rebates.
I am hoping my gut feeling is proven wrong :)
This is for sharing and suggesting your views, ( :)who are not opposing for buying a home now or in the near future and those who are staying at Bay Area, CA or similar places in US) where the medium home price is still looks like quite unaffordable :
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
more...
gc4me
08-11 04:33 PM
Two office colleagues, a British and an Indian are having their lunch in a restaurant . The Indian says," You know my parents are forcing me to get married to this so called homely girl from a village whom I haven't even met once. We call this arranged marriage. I don't want to marry a girl whom I don't love...I told them this quite openly and since then I have a hell lot of family problems."
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
Refugee_New
01-07 10:06 AM
Israel is fully justified in responding to the rocket attacks from Gaza. How long can they show restraint by not responding to the unprovoked attacks. Do you think US will remain silent, if Canada were to lob rockets into US. Asbolutely not. Every country has the right to protect itself.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Oh really? Thats how they bombed the school and killed more than 40 kids?
When terrorists attacked Mumbai, Indian commandos took 3 days to rescue hostages and kill terrorits.
When terrorists entered school in Baslan, Russia, Russian commandos took their time to respond in order to minimize the casualty and rescued most of the children and killed all those terrorist.
Do you think same thing happend in Palestinian school? There are certain rules that has to be followed during war. Rules of engagement. Not to kill innocent civilian, not to kill kids, not to bomb place of worship, hospitals etc. Do you think these are followed anywhere in anywhere while killing muslims?
If Israel want to kill terrorist, they have every right to kill those terrorist who kill Isrealis. Instead they are bombing kids. Which is not acceptable by any people or any nation.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Oh really? Thats how they bombed the school and killed more than 40 kids?
When terrorists attacked Mumbai, Indian commandos took 3 days to rescue hostages and kill terrorits.
When terrorists entered school in Baslan, Russia, Russian commandos took their time to respond in order to minimize the casualty and rescued most of the children and killed all those terrorist.
Do you think same thing happend in Palestinian school? There are certain rules that has to be followed during war. Rules of engagement. Not to kill innocent civilian, not to kill kids, not to bomb place of worship, hospitals etc. Do you think these are followed anywhere in anywhere while killing muslims?
If Israel want to kill terrorist, they have every right to kill those terrorist who kill Isrealis. Instead they are bombing kids. Which is not acceptable by any people or any nation.
more...
unseenguy
06-26 06:04 PM
A lot of bickering going on in this thread is because many of us (including yours truely) find it very difficult to understand/calculate
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
Hi Puddon head :
Thanks for putting this all together. I support mathematical approaches. Monte carlo analysis is a good approach and it will always present the most pessimistic scenario.
For optimistic analysis you can use, 3 or 6 point analysis like, (P + O + 4*ML)/6. Although ML in this situation is a tricky part.
I agree that you are going to end up with a range rather than any specific number. I also agree that it is crucial to get the Most likely range with acceptable standard deviation :)
You can use six sigma approach also :) ;) (just kidding on this last one).
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
Hi Puddon head :
Thanks for putting this all together. I support mathematical approaches. Monte carlo analysis is a good approach and it will always present the most pessimistic scenario.
For optimistic analysis you can use, 3 or 6 point analysis like, (P + O + 4*ML)/6. Although ML in this situation is a tricky part.
I agree that you are going to end up with a range rather than any specific number. I also agree that it is crucial to get the Most likely range with acceptable standard deviation :)
You can use six sigma approach also :) ;) (just kidding on this last one).
2010 I#39;m a wanna be kmart catalogue
fide_champ
04-06 06:26 AM
Fide_champ,
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
I am also looking for buying house in new jersey and as you mentioned all good places with good schools have hardly any effect from recession and housing down turn. But any way if you have to buy a house for long term then no point in waiting. The only thing bad times do to good places is value doesn't increase like it does in good times. Any suggestions on areas in New Jersey with good school and affordable (I mean something in 350-450k)? I know some very good areas where worst looking house starts at 700k which is out of scope.
USDream2Dust
USDReam2Dust,
Even in good school areas the values came down but not as much as 20, 30 or 50%. In my area, houses above 500K are not selling. But i could see multiple bidders for houses that are good and attractively priced(5 to 10%) reduction. We are probably at 2004/2005 prices right now. The most encouraging thing is people are still buying.
I live in south jersey and i know little bit about the south jersey market. I do not know much about other areas. In south jersey moorestown, mount laurel, marlton, voorhees, cherry hill are good areas to buy. Send a PM and we can discuss further about your specific requirements.
more...
somegchuh
03-25 02:14 PM
I am glad you see the spirit. I love hearing counter points.
Good Points. I like discussing real-estate; I'm deeply interested in it. So in that spirit of having a good conversation, here's my response:
Couldn't agree more. Real estate is really local. IMHO, rela estate in SF Bay Area where I live, is still very inflated. It will slide for at least a few years before it starts stagnating. Off course even in Bay Area there are bright spots where the schools are really good.
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
As a standard practice coming up with 20% down payment should be the right practice. But in Bay Area where an average house is 700K, coming up with 140K just for down payment is not easy. Again, this is really local. In ohter places coming with up with 20% makes it really easy. But in Bay Area ppl end up paying 5-10% as down payment and then pay monthly PMI.
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
Completely agree. Primary residence is for living but you don't want to buy something for .5 mil and realize you got sucked into a bad deal.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
Well, rents in the longer eventually do go up.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy.
Good Points. I like discussing real-estate; I'm deeply interested in it. So in that spirit of having a good conversation, here's my response:
Couldn't agree more. Real estate is really local. IMHO, rela estate in SF Bay Area where I live, is still very inflated. It will slide for at least a few years before it starts stagnating. Off course even in Bay Area there are bright spots where the schools are really good.
Real Estate market is always local. Unlike the market for -let's say- rice, which can be transported from one place where it's abundant to where it's scarce easily. Real Estate remains where it is. It's also subjected to a lot of local laws, municipal regulations etc. So, any discussion we have here will NOT apply to every single location. You have to research your own local regulations/market etc.
If you have rent control, it significantly changes the picture. It usually doesn't make sense to buy if you have rent control.
Could you explain property tax a little more? i.e. when you own it what % of your house is the tax? Is it a state tax? Is it fed deductible?
Yep, you pay it when you own a house. And yes, you pay it when you rent (it's rolled into your rent). The difference is that when you own, it's tax-deductible; if you pay it as part of your rent, it's not.
As a standard practice coming up with 20% down payment should be the right practice. But in Bay Area where an average house is 700K, coming up with 140K just for down payment is not easy. Again, this is really local. In ohter places coming with up with 20% makes it really easy. But in Bay Area ppl end up paying 5-10% as down payment and then pay monthly PMI.
You don't pay PMI, if you put down 20%. Not a bad idea to save that much. It forces one to learn financial planning and forward thinking.
Completely agree. Primary residence is for living but you don't want to buy something for .5 mil and realize you got sucked into a bad deal.
Profit/Loss is not what the primary residence is for.
Well, rents in the longer eventually do go up.
You can rent for less, now, but how about later? You're assuming rents don't go up, but they do. One of my neighbors pays $250 per month in loan payment for a house he bought 20 years ago (property tax and insurance adds $550 more). It was a big payment then. Now it's almost live living for free. If he rented this he'd by paying $2500 at least. Again, if you don't plan to settle down, don't buy.
hair latest Kmart catalogue,
yabadaba
08-11 08:24 AM
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
maybe we can do an official press release showing how dumb these people are. as far as i know all this information can be downloaded directly from the flc datacenter. we need to start writing op eds against people like lou dobbs who keep skewing the debate
more...
chanduv23
04-12 03:20 PM
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
hot Target amp; Kmart) Catalogue,
Legal
07-10 09:54 AM
;)
Actually this "slavery" terminology is good for us, we can strategically use this to promote legislation like SKIL among anti-immigrationists and Congressmen/ senators.
ELIMINATING GC BACKLOGS WOULD END THIS SLAVERY....
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS GETTING GC IN DUE TIME WOULD REDUCE H1 B SLAVERY
Actually this "slavery" terminology is good for us, we can strategically use this to promote legislation like SKIL among anti-immigrationists and Congressmen/ senators.
ELIMINATING GC BACKLOGS WOULD END THIS SLAVERY....
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS GETTING GC IN DUE TIME WOULD REDUCE H1 B SLAVERY
more...
house Kmart Catalogue
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."
tattoo Kmart catalogue 2-12 Dec
Macaca
12-30 04:19 PM
But today, as the year ends, the netroots activists who adored Reid at the start of the new Congress have begun turning on him, musing out loud about encouraging senators to oust him as leader. They complained that Reid's Senate caved - allowing continued tax breaks for oil companies, approving a new attorney general who wouldn't call waterboarding torture, breaking the pay-as-you go promise by approving a tax break without a tax hike on the rich.
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
more...
pictures kmart online kirsten dunst
riva2005
04-12 01:14 PM
Its important to understand the root cause for the retrogression. Illegals dont have categories and categories in the EB GCs are there for a reason. It makes a world of a difference for somebody who is EB2 or EB3 if the person was from say.. Bangladesh. If EB2 he is all set if EB3 he will be languishing here. I am EB2 and am in trouble because of CONSULTANTS and yes I have a problem with that.
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
dresses Australian Kmart catalogue
Macaca
12-30 05:35 PM
India Digs In Its Heels as China Flexes Its Muscles (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/world/asia/30india.html) By JIM YARDLEY | New York Times
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
more...
makeup I got the Kmart catalogue
Pagal
06-08 05:34 AM
Hello,
Great discussions...remember a similar thread that was hot in 2008.. :)
IMHO, buying house has little to do with 'status' in the country, but much more to do with your financial capabilities, location and timing...
1. Financial Capabilities
a) Can I afford to make payments even if I've to leave US and settle somewhere else?
b) Does buying house give me any tax breaks in US that I otherwise won't get?
c) Do I have 'reserve' funds (5-6% of purchase price) to take care of maintenance etc of the house?
2. Location
a) Is the neighbourhood dependent on a stable source of economic activity (e.g. tech industry areas like Bay Area or traditional industry areas like Texas)
b) Can the house be rented (if not, I would be cautious)?
c) Is the demographics well off (if not, bad economy may have a larger impact)?
3. Timing
a) Has housing appreciated by more than 2-3% per annum in the neighbourhood since 2000 (if yes, I would be cautious)?
b) Can I get 1-time tax benefits?
c) Can I make more money through other investments (leverage adjusted)?
The final decision is always personal and is neither right or wrong...its just a choice that the individuals make... good luck to those who are considering home ownership....
@pmpforgc,
Make as low a down payment as possible as the money supply is cheap as of now....if interest rates are higher than what you can get as investment return in the market, then making as large a down payment as possible makes sense... as of now, cost of money is at 5-6% and you can get more than that through investments...just my 2 cents!
Great discussions...remember a similar thread that was hot in 2008.. :)
IMHO, buying house has little to do with 'status' in the country, but much more to do with your financial capabilities, location and timing...
1. Financial Capabilities
a) Can I afford to make payments even if I've to leave US and settle somewhere else?
b) Does buying house give me any tax breaks in US that I otherwise won't get?
c) Do I have 'reserve' funds (5-6% of purchase price) to take care of maintenance etc of the house?
2. Location
a) Is the neighbourhood dependent on a stable source of economic activity (e.g. tech industry areas like Bay Area or traditional industry areas like Texas)
b) Can the house be rented (if not, I would be cautious)?
c) Is the demographics well off (if not, bad economy may have a larger impact)?
3. Timing
a) Has housing appreciated by more than 2-3% per annum in the neighbourhood since 2000 (if yes, I would be cautious)?
b) Can I get 1-time tax benefits?
c) Can I make more money through other investments (leverage adjusted)?
The final decision is always personal and is neither right or wrong...its just a choice that the individuals make... good luck to those who are considering home ownership....
@pmpforgc,
Make as low a down payment as possible as the money supply is cheap as of now....if interest rates are higher than what you can get as investment return in the market, then making as large a down payment as possible makes sense... as of now, cost of money is at 5-6% and you can get more than that through investments...just my 2 cents!
girlfriend The new Kmart catalogue popped
unitednations
08-02 10:35 PM
You mean the spouse gets 245i benifit even if the spouse was not present here on dec 2000 and came after 2001.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
hairstyles Injidup Point (Kmart catalogue
unitednations
08-02 02:17 PM
Definitely so. The fundamental problems of visa numbers and national quota remain and I think the next few months are going to be hell because of this stupid decision to rescind the July bulletin and allow everybody to apply for the I-485. How does one travel in an emergency after the I-485 is filed for but the receipt has not been received?
Once 485 is filed you can leave and re-enter the country if you have H or L visa.
You don't need to wait for the actual receipt.
Problem occurs if you leave before august 17th; thinking that lawyer has sent the case when he really hasn't and you were out when ucis receives the package. Eventually; uscis would figure it out and could deny the case becuase of this.
Also, not wise to leave before august 17th; because if the package gets returned for whatever reason then you need to be here to send it in again and you would have to update with new passport pages with stamps and i-94 card and date of last entry, etc.
I understand that people have to go out on business but they are unnecessary complications that people are doing.
Once 485 is filed you can leave and re-enter the country if you have H or L visa.
You don't need to wait for the actual receipt.
Problem occurs if you leave before august 17th; thinking that lawyer has sent the case when he really hasn't and you were out when ucis receives the package. Eventually; uscis would figure it out and could deny the case becuase of this.
Also, not wise to leave before august 17th; because if the package gets returned for whatever reason then you need to be here to send it in again and you would have to update with new passport pages with stamps and i-94 card and date of last entry, etc.
I understand that people have to go out on business but they are unnecessary complications that people are doing.
unitednations
07-09 10:55 AM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
Macaca
12-23 10:55 AM
Pelosi's first year
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment