.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

will smith and family on oprah

images Watch Will Smith On Oprah will smith and family on oprah. Oprah-and-will-smith-family-
  • Oprah-and-will-smith-family-



  • hiralal
    06-26 09:56 PM
    ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
    Pandey ji / Valid IV
    o.k..I will explain it slowly ..I can understand that those who are homeowners will justify their home purchase. some maybe in denial and have their head in sand.
    honestly, few months back, even I would have purchased a house . if I had, I would still admit -- that home is not necessarily good investment but a place to stay. even after I buy, I would still say that renting in an apartment has its advantages. here are 2 links in english.
    Why rent? To get richer - MSN Money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/WhyRentToGetRicher.aspx)
    Why Your Mortgage Won't Make You Rich - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124352291846962809.html)
    --------------
    now you need to read this carefully else you won't understand what the authors are trying to say ..since it is bit unclear but it has good points (not trying to make fun here :)) ..do read since they are superb articles
    but here is even simpler explanation and hopefully that will explain what I am trying to say ..if you still don't understand ..u will need to find someone else to explain.
    first renting gives you flexibility ...so say, u get better job offer or lose job - you don't lose lot of money compared to house if you have to move.
    for 250K house, you pay around 300 property tax, 60 HOA fees, 150 - 200 in maintenance (recurring like lawn plus once in long term like roof, painting etc) , 100 - 150 extra in utilities. you pay downpayment of 50 k ..if you were to invest that money in better investments (mutual funds, stocks, high CDs. bonds) ..you would make 250 - 300 per month. plus add fees when you have to sell the house, insurance, termite protection etc etc ..
    plus in many cases, you end up buying a house further away than if you were to rent (since many want brand new house ) ..this means extra 250 - 300 in gas + vehicle degradation per month.
    (ALSO SAY U WERE IN MICHIGAN OR IN CALIFORtNIA -- you could get away from the state after making money easily if you were renting. .home means you could end up stuck there).

    I agree in apartment you get less space and hence I mentioned - u need to ask - do you really need extra space at this time in life - if yes, then home is better. (but renting a home is even better esp if prices are still falling in your area in this case).
    btw - as of now rents are going down -- you just need to negotiate.
    now you don't get the money back in rents..but neither do you get money paid in the expenses listed above.
    (in other words - you don't get money back that you pay in rent yr apt BUT you get a place to stay ..this is not India where you can sleep on foot path - so you need a place. apartment property owner will make a small profit - but that is the system)

    before you jump - house is good when it appreciates by atleast 1 -2 percent above inflation and I am not saying that you should never buy a house.
    there are many other points and I will post it in IV WIKI ...and I hope this helps newcomers ...this is my last personal post ...and do watch the movie :) ..once again I did mention in plain english that it is worst case scenario (the movie "pacific heights")..but best case scenario is not good either if you are a landlord with property in US while you are in India (or vice versa).

    hope that answers your question ..please note: the above is for normal cases ..but if you get a good deal or short sale or foreclosed home for 50K --- then yes, buying makes sense !!





    wallpaper Oprah-and-will-smith-family- will smith and family on oprah. hair Oprah-and-will-smith-
  • hair Oprah-and-will-smith-



  • Macaca
    12-27 08:33 PM
    The Speaker's Grand Illusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601484.html) Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished By David S. Broder | Washington Post, Dec 27, 2007


    After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.

    In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.

    In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

    While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

    That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.

    There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.

    One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.

    An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.

    But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.

    The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.

    That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.





    will smith and family on oprah. Here#39;s another family
  • Here#39;s another family



  • ThinkTwice
    09-26 02:20 PM
    The kind of delay in the GC process, the uncertainity involved and now added to this is the possibility of the Obama administration if elected making it difficult for EB GC applicants.
    We have already anticipated this and had applied for the UK Highly Skilled Migrant Program (HSMP). We will most likely move to UK soon.. as soon as the elections are over.. a matter of few weeks. Unfortunate that after staying in this country for 12 years, having graduated from one of the best schools and having worked and having been a part of this great nation this is where it may all end for us. Whats even worse is that our son who is a US citizen will grow up in some other nation.
    Well.. time to move on.





    2011 hair Oprah-and-will-smith- will smith and family on oprah. Will Smith
  • Will Smith



  • senthil1
    05-16 05:29 PM
    Infact pro immigrants and Corporations are arguing that shortage of skills and they are not displacing US workers. If that is true why cannot they accept the conditions that they will not displace US workers. If you accept that you do not mind replacing some american workers also then all of your points are valid. Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards. You will never get American people support for that. But we all are lobbying based on the shortage of skills. So we should be ready to reduce H1b when demand goes down or accept the conditions for non displacement of US workers. Right now demand is more so US will absorb even 200K H1bs. But you need to look what happened between 2000 to 2003. So many layoffs. Part of reason was economy but other part was due to H1b and outsourcing

    I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.

    My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.


    I am not Ronald Regan but I am compelled to say, " There you go again...."



    Why are you consistently discussing about H-1B caps. Green card delays are not because of H-1B quota, I am sure you know this. H-1B caps have nothing to do who applied for the H-1s, whether those were consulting companies in US or a company in Japan. You are just saying it consistently in all your posts because you don�t like more people coming here after you are on path to green cards. In all your posts, you have this mid set where the door closes right behind you and more people should not be allowed on H-1. I am sure you qualify to be the member of IEEE-USA. Please Google search for their membership form. Just because the name of the organization is �Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers� doesn�t mean that every thing on their agenda is kosher.



    This shows that you have no clue about the reality. You have looked at the IEEE website and formulated the opinion about the nice people at IEEE-USA, who are working overtime for you to get your green card. This is what you think, right? Well! My friend we live in a very strange world in which political organization (like IEEE) show stuff on their website just so that they don�t appear to be outright anti-immigrants.
    Also, I do think that anybody who do not want to pick up their ass to find a job and rather chose to whine about someone else taking away the job is lazy and for sure undeserving. They are interested to put restrictions on H-1B because they want to eliminate their competition. Every community/group, big or small, have their opponents and enemies just because of the sheer nature of the competition for resource with other groups/communities. H-1B community now forms substantially large group of people. It is natural that orgs like IEEE-USA will be a natural opponent of H-1B community because there is a competition. Now, most members of IEEE-USA are older and middle aged folks, who are not able to compete with good quality engineers from other parts of the world. The folks on H-1 are young, dynamic and fast learners. IEEE-USA folks cannot compete with this group and so they are working to eliminate competition from H-1B folks by other means. Sometimes they call H-1Bs as indentured servants, sometimes promoting outsourcing, sometimes taking away their jobs and sometime depressing wages. They throw out all sorts of rationale to hurt H-1B community. And some idiots on this and other forums have not clue of the bigger picture and are hell bent on screwing the so called �body shoppers� as if it is ok to work at the client site to do the same job at the same amount if you are employees of KPMG or Accenture or Bearing Point. But it is not ok to do the same thing if you are an employee of TCS, INFY or SIFY etc. If this is not discrimination, then tell me what is????? I sincerely do want to understand your view and please consider me to be totally ignorant person who is here to learn from you. I sincerely mean it.



    So you do think that anything associated with the word �IEEE� is gospel. Let me share with you my friend that IEEE and IEEE-USA are totally different organizations. Just like any other organization in the world, IEEE-USA is working to address the issues of their members only. IEEE-USA is working to fix the issues of their members who live in USA ONLY. It has no clue and no desire and no objective to look at any of your issues, no matter what they are. We all acknowledge that are problems with the H-1B program but the question is, Is Durbin-Grassley approach the real solution to the problem? Congress did not address anything associated with H-1B visa for last 6-7 years. If you write to lawmakers they only understand only thing about the word �H-1B� and that is increase in H-1B� that�s it. Now every system in the world needs tweaking from time to time and this has not happened with H-1B program for a very long time. Either way, throwing out people waiting for green cards for 6-7 years is not the solution, putting in restrictions to undermine the entire H-1B program (because they know they will not have enough votes to reduce the visa numbers or eliminate the program) is not the solution, �investigating� companies when they hire someone on H-1B as if hiring someone on H-1B is a crime is not the solution, singling out companies from one country because the guy driving IEEE-USA (Ron Hira) doesn�t want more people to come from India because he hates his heritage � is not the solution. Yes there are problems, but Durbin-Grassley bill is not the solution.



    Who needs enemies if we have friends like you? I mean why do you want hard working people to unnecessary go through more problems before getting their green cards, as if the existing problems for us are not enough. You simple want to make the system difficult to test human endurance? You know what, we can do this, how about all the stringent conditions of Durbin-Grassley bill will apply ONLY on you and we are all sure that the �HIGH-SKILLED� that you are, you will pass all the �tests� with flying colors. For rest all the others, please consider us lowly skilled and please set a bar lower to the extent that is humanly achievable, we are not �highly-skilled� super-humans like yourself.



    Yes, you have not yet clearly said that �I support banning all H-1Bs�, not in those words, not yet. But reading your posts, it is apparent that you are headed there, as soon as you get your green card. As I said earlier, form now on, just think that all the Durbin-Grassley conditions apply on you and live your life as per the standard set by Durbin-Grassley. For the rest of us, please have mercy on us.



    more...


    will smith and family on oprah. Will Smith in Fresh Prince Of
  • Will Smith in Fresh Prince Of



  • pappu
    03-23 11:45 AM
    How did you verify if the call was really from Immigration services?





    will smith and family on oprah. 2011 Will Smith and family too
  • 2011 Will Smith and family too



  • Dhundhun
    08-05 06:43 PM
    Friends

    Keep it up and going. Jokes are wonderful and quite relaxing. I think they in in need indeed.

    Thanks



    more...


    will smith and family on oprah. Oprah is winding down to the
  • Oprah is winding down to the



  • santb1975
    09-28 06:05 PM
    After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.

    I have been in the United States for 10 years - LEGALLY. I came here for my Masters and I work as a Compliance Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy and I hope that I can settle down in this great country.

    I want the Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke me up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community is making me explore opportunities outside of the United States after spending 10 years in this great land. I have little bit more time to decide what I want to do but if things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, I have made up my mind to pursue opportunities outside of the United States.

    Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against the EB community. My question to Sen. Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???





    2010 Here#39;s another family will smith and family on oprah. Watch Will Smith On Oprah
  • Watch Will Smith On Oprah



  • h1techSlave
    12-26 10:01 PM
    Nobody's gonna come to wipe your ass. You gotta do it yourself.

    Yeah man, you put it correclty. India was always hoping that would happen.



    more...


    will smith and family on oprah. Oprah-and-will-smith-family-
  • Oprah-and-will-smith-family-



  • Macaca
    05-14 06:24 PM
    An Increasing Population is a Good Thing. So is Immigration. (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6941654/an-increasing-population-is-a-good-thing-so-is-immigration.thtml) By ALEX MASSIEFRIDAY | Spectator

    Plenty of folk seem to think otherwise. Including George Bridges who has written a very curious post for the Motherblog in which he seems most perturbed by the prospect of this happy isle's population increasing. He even suggests he's not doing his bit since Mrs Bridges is expecting their third child, presumably furthering the onrushing demographic apocalypse.

    Piffle. Good for Mrs Bridges and her fecund husband. Congratulations to them. May they produce this and many more little Bridges. A rising population is a feature of a healthy society, not the beginning of the end for this sceptered land. Of course an increasing population puts pressure on any number of public facilities and services, from transport to schools to housing to hospitals. But so what? It's also a motor for future economic growth which will - hurrah! - provide for all of this. Excess capacity caused by an absence of demand is, as many a rural parish will tell you, a much more grievous problem than having too many people. There is no need for this "for we are too many" Jude the Obscure stuff. There really isn't.

    Mr Bridges concludes, darkly:

    Cameron, Theresa May and Damian Green have made a good start at controlling immigration. But that�s just a start. More needs to be done to educate the public about the challenge. We need some radical thinking about how we solve it; and we must ask ourselves whether a state that was largely constructed to cope with 50 million people can meet the challenges of 70 million people?

    Really? The logic of this position leads us to China's one-child policy. Is that really what those obsessed with population figures want to see? If not, perhaps they can tell us what the optimal UK population figure might be and how they propose to "cap" the number of people living in this country at that number?

    OK, let us suppose that, ill-advisedly, the government reduces immigration to "zero". What then? Do you, as I say, limit the number of children people may have? Or do you pay people to emigrate so the population remains beneath your arbitrarily-decided "ideal" figure? Would that be enough? Probably not! There could be back-street, clandestine babies born every day!

    Seriously, do these people think a falling population would be a good thing? Perhaps they do. Population decline is rarely the sign of a healthy society. Rarely? Never seems more probable. Factor in the reality that the existing population is increasingly elderly and it becomes clear, surely, that Britain will need more people. The alternative is fewer and fewer workers providing for more and more pensioners and, by doing so, ensuring that their own futures are bleaker than they need be. Suggesting that population growth is so very dangerous is, essentially, to demand much higher taxes on today's teenagers and their future. What's just about that?

    So it's good that Mr and Mrs Bridges are spawning again. But their efforts, no matter how heroic, will not be enough. Which is another reason why immigration is a good thing not the beginning of the end. We need more people so we can cope with the costs of an increasingly wrinkly population.

    This is the self-interested justification for more immigration (since not everyone is as selfless as the Bridges when it comes to healthy birth-rates) though of course there are many other, more altruistic and even noble grounds for welcoming a come-all-ye approach to these matters. To be born or live in Britain is to have access to opportunities and riches that are the stuff of dreams for most of the world's population. We should allow more people from other lands to have those chances.

    That will be good for them and it will be necessary - and good - for us too. Sure, there are problems and strains and pressures associated with immigration and population growth but they're not nearly so terrifying as the prospect of a geriatric and closed society working its few remaining young people to the bone with little to no regard for the future well-being of the people supporting the oldies. Those obsessed by population figures should be asked what they consider to be the ideal worker:retiree ratio.

    Again, and really it cannot be stressed enough, in the developed world a growing population is a mark of success, not failure.

    Still, if you do think there's an imminent population crisis, there is one more option available to you: compulsory euthanasia ten years after you pass the point of average life expectancy. This seems a modest enough proposal, don't you think?


    Obama�s wise investment: Making life easier for 'illegals' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/obamas-wise-investment-making-life-easier-for-illegals/article2021683/) By DOUG SAUNDERS | Globe and Mail
    Obama playing games with immigration (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/12/navarrette.immigration.obama/index.html) By Ruben Navarrette | CNN
    Gutless politicians are broken, not the immigration system (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/gutless-politicians-are-broken-not-immigration-system) By Greg Kane | Examiner
    The Muslim-American: reclaiming my identity (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110514a1.html) By ARSHAD CHOWDHURY | The Japan Times





    hair Will Smith will smith and family on oprah. She will perform her new
  • She will perform her new



  • trueguy
    07-13 03:04 AM
    Sorry .. I don't understand ... You are complaining to DOS for USCIS and DOL discrepancies ? They don't care ..different departments really..

    Had they cared July fiasco wouldn't have happened...


    This is the first time, EB3-I is speaking up. Please don't stop us.

    DOS and USCIS both are tied together. I think we should send this letter to both DOS and USCIS and request them to distribute spillover numbers equally between EB3 and EB2 category or similar.

    Thanks



    more...


    will smith and family on oprah. OPRAH SAYS TA-TA
  • OPRAH SAYS TA-TA



  • checklaw
    10-02 01:10 PM
    he for now atleast, seems slightly different then regular politicians that we know of...and considering the consequences of present financial crisis would most likely be the next President coming Nov..

    but to us, the prospective permanent immigrants, this comes with a measure of fear knowing he might listen and act only to staunch anti-legal-immigration policy advisors in his rank who seem to wield substantial influence on such matters.
    checklaw





    hot Will Smith in Fresh Prince Of will smith and family on oprah. of Will Smith#39;s children,
  • of Will Smith#39;s children,



  • Macaca
    05-27 05:56 PM
    U.S. Must Adapt to China's New Patterns of Growth ( | World Politics Review) By IAIN MILLS | World Politics Review

    The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.

    One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.

    American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.

    Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.

    China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.

    But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.

    For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.

    Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.

    China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.

    Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.

    Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.

    For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.

    Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.

    For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.



    GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
    America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
    Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
    Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
    By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
    Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
    Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
    General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
    Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
    No go
    The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
    The Economist
    Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
    China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times



    more...


    house Color Purple”, Will Smith will smith and family on oprah. Oprah#39;s Last Episode: The
  • Oprah#39;s Last Episode: The



  • pete
    04-09 08:43 AM
    What is deep six??





    tattoo 2011 Will Smith and family too will smith and family on oprah. makeup will smith family
  • makeup will smith family



  • unitednations
    03-26 03:24 PM
    UnitedNations,

    So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?

    cinqsit

    what i have learned is uscis can do anything at any time if they want to.

    They have different legal cases that they would use if they thought companies/people were doing things that they didn't like. From all the research/cases I have seen, come across; I concluded that uscis could apply these cases to everyone if they wish.

    However; they do not apply it to everyone.

    The h-1b defnesor vs. meissner is something that california service center has beendoing for many, many years and everyone has adjusted to it who file through california.

    However; vermont never used that case. Now; they are using that case as a justification to deny h-1b's across the board for staffing companies because they think there is a lot of fraud involved in the petitions. Califiornia; doesn't apply the case becasue they think there is fraud but rather they are doing what they think is lawful.

    That's why I tell everyone that before you start getting into advoacy; you have to know all the powers that USCIS has and how they can really start making things difficult for everyone.

    Right now; they are not using that case on 140's. If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll (this will generally be the case as consultants come and go and use ac21) then there might be a shift.

    In last eight years; most of the public memos issued by uscis have been employee/candidate friendly. However, those memos can change at any time based on economic and political winds.



    more...


    pictures Oprah is winding down to the will smith and family on oprah. Will Smith On Oprah Show!
  • Will Smith On Oprah Show!



  • validIV
    06-25 03:10 PM
    This thread, according to the OP, was about long term prospects about buying a home. If you look at it in this context, especially to all the renters here, consider this:

    If you are renting for 30 years, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with nothing.

    If you own your home and instead use that rent money to pay for your home, and in most cases a little extra more money, at the end of those 30 years you wind up with your own house. Even if the value of the home goes to ZERO which is literally impossible, in the end you wind up with a home.

    30 years is a long time and anything could happen. History has shown us that economies fluctuate and will continue to do so whether we buy a house or not. The question for you is which of those 2 situations above do you want to be in after 30 years.

    For those who want to wind up with a home consider looking at auctions. There was a huge auction hosted by REDC here in NY that almost sold all of its properties on the first day:

    Foreclosure Home & Properties: Foreclosed Homes, Condo Repos, Repossession, Real Estate Sale (http://www.auction.com/)

    before you consider buying in your neighborhood, please look at the inventory first. Some homes are sold for cash only, but some can be financed. I attended the NYC auction and it was crazy. They have upcoming auctions on most US states and you can also attend the auction online.





    dresses of Will Smith#39;s children, will smith and family on oprah. Will Smith and family on
  • Will Smith and family on



  • pasupuleti
    06-21 06:50 PM
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/21/EDGDOILMUV1.DTL



    more...


    makeup Oprah-and-will-smith-family- will smith and family on oprah. Color Purple”, Will Smith
  • Color Purple”, Will Smith



  • alisa
    12-30 11:34 PM
    It is preposterous to compare Mumbai attacks with a speculative India involvement in Baluchistan.

    The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?

    Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.

    I never suggested they Bombay and Balochistan were morally equivalent.

    At some point in this thread, someone suggested that India should try to destabilize Pakistan by supporting insurgent and militant groups in Pakistan. And I had merely suggested that Pakistan already suspects India of doing that. And that there is probably some truth in it. And Pakistan supports insurgent groups in India.
    Or at least, both countries keep their 'options' open by maintaining contacts with the insurgent in the other countries.
    That is the vicious cycle.

    As far as Bombay is concerned, I have said it before that I believe that that was an attempt to provoke India, so that the Pakistan army can be diverted to the Eastern front, and the Taalibaan/militants get some relief.

    I think the Indian think tanks think that the Pakistan army was behind it. I think that the Taalibaans/Jihadists were behind it. It will be very hard to prove it one way or the other.

    And war would be a disaster; like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. What amazes me is the capacity of the human mind to give in to irrationality, and vigorously advocate jumping from the frying pan into the fire.





    girlfriend makeup will smith family will smith and family on oprah. quot;The Smith family has been
  • quot;The Smith family has been



  • saravanaraj.sathya
    08-08 10:39 AM
    UnitedNations - You are simply amazing..I admire ur courage and feel more confident now. I think this thread has invaludable information so that people will be careful before giving any wrong information to USCIS and geting into to trouble later on.

    Question-
    --------------------
    Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?

    Yes, that is correct.

    I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:

    w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.

    I-134 affidavit of support

    All passports

    Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)

    Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary

    last three months paystubs

    Company two years of tax returns

    Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999

    Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).

    I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.

    From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.

    Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).

    I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.

    Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.

    He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.

    He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.

    He then said case is approved.

    Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.





    hairstyles OPRAH SAYS TA-TA will smith and family on oprah. Up close of Will Smith kissing
  • Up close of Will Smith kissing



  • unitednations
    03-26 02:52 PM
    Where is this ace technology, and I wonder if it's a small firm...

    it wasn't a small firm.





    gomirage
    06-07 10:21 PM
    For me its a very simple thing, print that damn thing of plastic and I will buy.

    lol, can't blame you.





    sk2006
    06-06 03:44 PM
    why are all the non-GC-holder desis even debating owning a home?!!
    is that not, like, the most laughable, stupid thing to do?

    what the fu$k!! you dont have a GC, you dont have any job security, you dont have any unemployment/social security, you blow your savings on a house, stocks and houses will take about 4 solid years to get back to where they were (if ever), this country's economy is tanking, there is no love for legal immigrants, we are still only in the middle of this recession (depression?).................aah, what the hell.........

    go buy your american dream you stupid desis...........you get what you deserve.


    Truth: Harshly put.

    In the words of the famous Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:->

    "Mar chuk kahin ki tu Gham-e-Hizran se chhoot Jaye,
    Kahte to hain bhale ki wo lekin buri tarah"

    Translation:
    "Kill yourself and you will get rid of your miseries! Well, what is said is for my good but the way it is said is very bad".



    No comments:

    Post a Comment