gccovet
06-25 03:17 PM
Is there any way to know if 140 revoked after approval.is there any change in LUD ?
Put the reciept # in the USCIS online case status, if you see a LUD, check the case status, you might be able to see the "new text/info"
GCCovet
Put the reciept # in the USCIS online case status, if you see a LUD, check the case status, you might be able to see the "new text/info"
GCCovet
wallpaper Emma Stone Beautiful Long
forsen
09-25 09:10 PM
Hi,
I'm trying to bend text into a circle. I want the text to be standing up and then to spin the camera around the outside of the text.
Is there anyway I can bend the text in swift 3d into a circle or do I need to produce each letter seperately and then rotate and position?
Or, can I import the bent (circular) text from another application then 3d ify it in swift 2.0 ?
Thanks
Forsen
I'm trying to bend text into a circle. I want the text to be standing up and then to spin the camera around the outside of the text.
Is there anyway I can bend the text in swift 3d into a circle or do I need to produce each letter seperately and then rotate and position?
Or, can I import the bent (circular) text from another application then 3d ify it in swift 2.0 ?
Thanks
Forsen
Silvermanto
05-26 06:23 AM
Hi I'm a US citizen and have around 15k or less credit card debt. All government loans were paid off. Something happened three and a half years ago in my home town and I had to leave Washington state and took care of it. So my question is: it's has been 3 and a half year and I'm heading back to washington state for short visit.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
2011 Emma Stone Hairstyles
Macaca
09-27 11:40 AM
Following Bush Over a Cliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 27, 2007
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
SCHIP has been one of the most successful health-care measures created in the past decade. It was started in 1997 with support from both parties, in order to insure children in families with incomes too high to receive Medicaid but who could not afford private insurance.
The $40 billion spent on SCHIP in the past 10 years financed insurance for roughly 6.6 million youngsters a year. The money was distributed through the states, which were given considerable flexibility in designing their programs. The insurance came from private companies, at rates negotiated by the states.
Governors of both parties -- 43 of them, again including conservatives such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia -- have praised the program. And they endorsed the congressional decision to expand the coverage to an additional 4 million youngsters, at the cost of an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The bill would be financed by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes. If ever there was a crowd-pleaser of a bill, this is it. Hundreds of organizations -- grass-roots groups ranging from AARP to United Way of America and the national YMCA -- have called on Bush to sign the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the bill on Monday.
But Bush insists that SCHIP is "an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American" -- an eventuality he is determined to prevent.
Bush's adamant stand may be peculiar to him, but the willingness of Republican legislators to line up with him is more significant. Bush does not have to face the voters again, but these men and women will be on the ballot in just over a year -- and their Democratic opponents will undoubtedly remind them of their votes.
Two of their smartest colleagues -- Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Ray LaHood of Illinois -- tried to steer House Republicans away from this political self-immolation, but they had minimal success. The combined influence of White House and congressional leadership -- and what I would have to call herd instinct -- prevailed.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) argued that "rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children that cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health-care needs."
In his new book, former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that his fellow Republicans deserved to lose their congressional majority in 2006 because they let spending run out of control and turned a blind eye toward misbehavior by their own members. Now, those Republicans have given voters a fresh reason to question their priorities -- or their common sense.
Saying no to immigration reform and measures to shorten the war in Iraq may be politically defensible, because there are substantial constituencies who question the wisdom of those bills -- and who favor alternative policies. But the Bush administration's arguments against SCHIP -- the cost of the program and the financing -- sound hollow at a time when billions more are being spent in Iraq with no end in sight. Bush's alternative -- a change in the tax treatment of employer-financed health insurance -- has some real appeal, but it is an idea he let languish for months after offering it last winter. And, in the judgment of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, Bush's plan is too complex and controversial to be tied to the renewal of SCHIP.
This promised veto is a real poison pill for the GOP.
more...
Macaca
10-27 08:32 AM
Voters' contempt for Congress rises (http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_7297497?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) POLL: PELOSI'S NUMBERS TAKE ANOTHER DIVE By Frank Davies (fdavies@mercurynews.com or (202) 662-8921) | Mercury News Washington Bureau, 10/27/2007
WASHINGTON - California voters continue to disapprove of Congress even more than they do of President Bush, and for the first time Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ratings are more negative than positive, according to a Field Poll released today.
The poll found that 22 percent of state voters approve of Congress' job performance, with 64 percent disapproving. The discontent was bipartisan, with 70 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 58 percent of Democrats giving Congress negative marks.
Those findings, taken in a survey of 1,201 voters from Oct. 11 through Oct. 21, track national surveys. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll during the same period also found a 22 percent approval rating for Congress. A CBS Poll registered a 27 percent approval rating.
Bush earned a 27 percent approval rating from voters in the same Field Poll.
Political analysts give several reasons for the low marks: Democratic voters' dissatisfaction over the inability to change Iraq war policy, Republicans' opposition to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, and a sense by many voters that Congress can't come to grips with tough issues such as immigration.
"Republican reaction has remained about the same this year, but the real trend is that rank-and-file Democrats and non-partisans are displeased because they expected more from the Democratic Congress," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.
Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, earned a 48 percent approval rating in March, two months after Democrats took over Congress. That dropped to 39 percent in August and 35 percent in October, with 40 percent disapproving and 25 percent registering no opinion.
"Iraq is the anchor weighing down Bush," DiCamillo said, "and now it's an anchor on Pelosi because of the complete inability of Congress to change course on the war."
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders held meetings in the last week to find ways to improve their "message" about what they call the New Direction Congress, highlighting such legislation as the minimum wage increase and ethics reform.
Despite the low marks for Congress, Republicans had little to cheer about in the new Field Poll. Voters gave an approval rating of 34 percent to Democrats in Congress, and 20 percent to Republicans.
Only 29 percent of Republican voters in California approved of the GOP performance in Congress, with 53 percent registering disapproval.
"That 2-to-1 disapproval by their own party really jumps out," DiCamillo said. "Republicans in Congress are now playing 'prevent defense' for Bush on the war and on domestic issues, and Republicans in this state do not approve of that."
The state's two senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, earned higher marks than Pelosi and Congress overall, but the approval ratings for each senator dropped 10 percentage points since March.
The survey showed that 51 percent of all voters approved of Feinstein's job, with 31 percent disapproving. Boxer's approval rating was 44 percent positive and 35 percent negative.
WASHINGTON - California voters continue to disapprove of Congress even more than they do of President Bush, and for the first time Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ratings are more negative than positive, according to a Field Poll released today.
The poll found that 22 percent of state voters approve of Congress' job performance, with 64 percent disapproving. The discontent was bipartisan, with 70 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 58 percent of Democrats giving Congress negative marks.
Those findings, taken in a survey of 1,201 voters from Oct. 11 through Oct. 21, track national surveys. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll during the same period also found a 22 percent approval rating for Congress. A CBS Poll registered a 27 percent approval rating.
Bush earned a 27 percent approval rating from voters in the same Field Poll.
Political analysts give several reasons for the low marks: Democratic voters' dissatisfaction over the inability to change Iraq war policy, Republicans' opposition to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, and a sense by many voters that Congress can't come to grips with tough issues such as immigration.
"Republican reaction has remained about the same this year, but the real trend is that rank-and-file Democrats and non-partisans are displeased because they expected more from the Democratic Congress," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.
Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, earned a 48 percent approval rating in March, two months after Democrats took over Congress. That dropped to 39 percent in August and 35 percent in October, with 40 percent disapproving and 25 percent registering no opinion.
"Iraq is the anchor weighing down Bush," DiCamillo said, "and now it's an anchor on Pelosi because of the complete inability of Congress to change course on the war."
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders held meetings in the last week to find ways to improve their "message" about what they call the New Direction Congress, highlighting such legislation as the minimum wage increase and ethics reform.
Despite the low marks for Congress, Republicans had little to cheer about in the new Field Poll. Voters gave an approval rating of 34 percent to Democrats in Congress, and 20 percent to Republicans.
Only 29 percent of Republican voters in California approved of the GOP performance in Congress, with 53 percent registering disapproval.
"That 2-to-1 disapproval by their own party really jumps out," DiCamillo said. "Republicans in Congress are now playing 'prevent defense' for Bush on the war and on domestic issues, and Republicans in this state do not approve of that."
The state's two senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, earned higher marks than Pelosi and Congress overall, but the approval ratings for each senator dropped 10 percentage points since March.
The survey showed that 51 percent of all voters approved of Feinstein's job, with 31 percent disapproving. Boxer's approval rating was 44 percent positive and 35 percent negative.
Blog Feeds
12-10 05:20 PM
Eleven people arrested in a scheme that raked in an estimated $50,000,000. Here are details from the LA Times: Authorities arrested 11 people Monday in an alleged U.S. work-visa scam that raked in more than $50 million from thousands of Brazilians since 2002. Some of those scammed went to the U.S. and wound up as illegal aliens because promised jobs didn't exist. Brazilians seeking temporary working visas were charged up to $15,000 each in what a statement from the U.S. Consulate called one of the largest cases of U.S. visa fraud ever. Similar schemes were uncovered in Russia, the Dominican...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/scamwatch-visa-fraud-sceme-broken-up-in-brazil.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/scamwatch-visa-fraud-sceme-broken-up-in-brazil.html)
more...
nanban007
02-25 02:21 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=da75d676b6b6f110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
2010 Emma Stone Films Friends with
forsite
07-08 10:12 PM
Hi Friends,
My EAD expires in the mid of August.I am planning to go india at last week of July.I thought of applying for EAD renewal now.But my lawer said it is always preferrable that the candidate must present in US while processing EAD renewal.Is it ok if I apply for renewal after I come back from India.By that time,My EAD already expires.Will it be a problem If I apply for renewal after expiry of current EAD.I am currently on H1B visa and I am not using EAD status now.If it is a problem,I will postpone my India trip.
Thanks
My EAD expires in the mid of August.I am planning to go india at last week of July.I thought of applying for EAD renewal now.But my lawer said it is always preferrable that the candidate must present in US while processing EAD renewal.Is it ok if I apply for renewal after I come back from India.By that time,My EAD already expires.Will it be a problem If I apply for renewal after expiry of current EAD.I am currently on H1B visa and I am not using EAD status now.If it is a problem,I will postpone my India trip.
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
08-18 02:10 AM
Immigration Lawyers Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
The new visa bulletin is out at this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5113.html. Employment-based categories are as follows: EB-1 remains current for all countries; EB-2 remains current, except for India and China which are at May 2006; EB-3 is at Dec. 2004 for all countries, except for India (Jan. 2002), China (Oct. 2003), and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-3 other workers is at March 2003 for all countries, except India (Jan. 2002)and Mexico (currently unavailable); EB-4, religious workers, EB-5, and targeted employment areas and regional centers are all current. Family based petitions are backlogged, with the most recent date at Jan. 2010.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~4/hHcICkxAgKc
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ImmigrationLawyersBlog/~3/hHcICkxAgKc/september_2010_department_of_s.html)
hair Emma Stone Hairstyle
bhartigorkar
07-23 06:07 PM
I really like to make this type of graphic.
Hope u like this.
http://a.imageshack.us/img20/2739/arttshirt.jpg
Hope u like this.
http://a.imageshack.us/img20/2739/arttshirt.jpg
more...
kirupa
04-17 06:50 AM
You can export the cube with only the outlines and then export the cube without the outlines and just the fill. Incorporate both animations into Flash, and you should be able to manipulate them both as you choose.
hot Are You Missing Emma Stone#39;s
Blog Feeds
02-05 06:40 PM
South African-born Dave Matthews, the lead singer of rock band the Dave Matthews Band is having a great year with his most recent album, Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King nominated this evening for a Grammy for Album of the Year. Matthews gave a great performance at the Haiti telethon last weekend with Neil Young. He's been active in a number of other charities helping farmers, Hurricane Katrina victims and victims of the Virginia Tech shooting (Matthews' hometown is Charlottesville, Virginia). Matthews is also an actor and has been in a number of movies including Because of Winn-Dixie, a favorite...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-dave-matthews-musician.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-dave-matthews-musician.html)
more...
house Emma Stone in a colorful dress
sunanda_guru
11-09 01:53 PM
Hi Ramya,
You can walk out of Wipro paying them nothing,
Have you signed any document or bond which is valid here in United states, then you might have to consult the lawyer otherwise if it is very staight froward case,
One sided bonds not going to last long in court,
Good luck.
You can walk out of Wipro paying them nothing,
Have you signed any document or bond which is valid here in United states, then you might have to consult the lawyer otherwise if it is very staight froward case,
One sided bonds not going to last long in court,
Good luck.
tattoo Emma sure looked good with her
vali
03-30 01:33 PM
I just checked and my attorney just reopened the closed LCA.
Anyone any ideea how I can switch companies?
Thanks.
Anyone any ideea how I can switch companies?
Thanks.
more...
pictures emma stone easy a makeup.
nkhari
01-11 04:18 PM
yes, was and thought about it. Just woke up to see Life without GC is still the same and I am a day old. Now, I feel relaxed. Now, there is no need to check or wait for bulletin for the next one year or to atleast have any hope.
dresses Emma Stone | Red hair
kiranraheja
10-29 05:48 AM
I recently got my I797 approved (on Oct 19) but, the USCIS denied my extension of stay, and I need to go for stamping in Chennai (as per I797). My question:
1. Can I attend the interview in Canada/Hyderabad consulate instead of Chennai. Company attorney said that should be ok and filing I824 for change of consulate would take long.
In case you wanted to know more details about my case:
-Possess I797 from Employer A until Nov13, 2009.
-Filed for H1b extension with Employer B in Feb, denied in Jun15. payroll with Emp B Feb onwards.
-Re-filed for extn with Emp B in Aug4 finally approved on Oct19 but denied extn of stay.
1. Can I attend the interview in Canada/Hyderabad consulate instead of Chennai. Company attorney said that should be ok and filing I824 for change of consulate would take long.
In case you wanted to know more details about my case:
-Possess I797 from Employer A until Nov13, 2009.
-Filed for H1b extension with Employer B in Feb, denied in Jun15. payroll with Emp B Feb onwards.
-Re-filed for extn with Emp B in Aug4 finally approved on Oct19 but denied extn of stay.
more...
makeup 2011 Emma Stone Gorgeous Long
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
girlfriend makeup pictures Emma Stone in
ramus
06-25 12:58 PM
Please please don't create new thred for every question you may have.. There is already one thred with June receipt.. you can post your question there.
Also please contribute now if you haven't done so far..
Thank you so much.
Anyone who filed on 6/7/2007....still waiting for checks to be encashed?
Also please contribute now if you haven't done so far..
Thank you so much.
Anyone who filed on 6/7/2007....still waiting for checks to be encashed?
hairstyles emma stone haircut.
Blog Feeds
06-03 03:40 PM
VIA AILA
As of May 29, 2009, approximately 45,800 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been received by USCIS and counted towards the H-1B cap. Approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/06/03/uscis-updates-fy-2010-h1b-count-updated-6309.aspx?ref=rss)
As of May 29, 2009, approximately 45,800 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been received by USCIS and counted towards the H-1B cap. Approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption had been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits.
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/06/03/uscis-updates-fy-2010-h1b-count-updated-6309.aspx?ref=rss)
orphean
02-17 09:43 AM
Hi,
I"m currently working for a TARP company and my I-94 date is Aug 2009. I still have 3 years left on my H1B.
I've got an offer from another bank (non-TARP) and they have filed for my H1 transfer.
a) Any idea what the wait times are these days?
b) Anybody seen problems with H1B transfers these days?
c) There might be a 1 week overlap (pay) between my current company and my future company. is that OK? e.g. My join date in the new company will be Feb 23rd and my notice date will be Feb 28th in my current company.
cheers
I"m currently working for a TARP company and my I-94 date is Aug 2009. I still have 3 years left on my H1B.
I've got an offer from another bank (non-TARP) and they have filed for my H1 transfer.
a) Any idea what the wait times are these days?
b) Anybody seen problems with H1B transfers these days?
c) There might be a 1 week overlap (pay) between my current company and my future company. is that OK? e.g. My join date in the new company will be Feb 23rd and my notice date will be Feb 28th in my current company.
cheers
anilsal
09-14 05:25 PM
when it says it has something to report.
This is what I like about IV.
I will be in DC anyway for the rally.
This is what I like about IV.
I will be in DC anyway for the rally.
No comments:
Post a Comment