ek_bechara
09-10 05:33 PM
Citizenship? LOL... you made my day.
wallpaper Stefani Joanne Angelina
Googler
02-20 02:54 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
crazyghoda
01-16 04:27 PM
My layoff was much less traumatizing at the instant.
I was in India on vacation and one fine day I check my work email to see an email that I was let go a day earlier with 2 weeks of severance.
Luckily I had my AP with me which is what I used to return back instead of the H1. Needless to add my entire remainder of the vacation was ruined in between obsessing about how to come back (try using the H1 even though laid off or use the AP and face secondary inspections) and applying to new jobs.
Well I am back now and looking everywhere. Hopefully something should click soon.
All the best guys!
I was in India on vacation and one fine day I check my work email to see an email that I was let go a day earlier with 2 weeks of severance.
Luckily I had my AP with me which is what I used to return back instead of the H1. Needless to add my entire remainder of the vacation was ruined in between obsessing about how to come back (try using the H1 even though laid off or use the AP and face secondary inspections) and applying to new jobs.
Well I am back now and looking everywhere. Hopefully something should click soon.
All the best guys!
2011 lady gaga aka Stefani Joanne
jambapamba
07-13 07:56 AM
Yes, please correct the spelling....
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
Please correct your spelling of Murthy. I thought some senator or Congressman Murphy wrote to DOS. If it was murthy I wouldn't have bothered to come on this thread. She is a big time crook. Shamelessly she's trying to take credit of everything that we are doing here under 1 banner called immigrationvoice she will take credit of Zoe Lofgren and everybody else. She has never ever mentioned immigrationvoice for anything in her so called updates.
more...
rpatel
07-24 02:38 PM
jc menon...have u ever taken a law class? do u have a jd? why are u then so adamant on thinking u "found" the loophole?
we are not stupid morons over here. Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
I dont think anyone should make this a personal issue and try to boast that he/she has complete understanding of the underlying issue while make it seem like everyone else is a buffon. The last thing we want here is people turning against each other and calling names....I can understand that in these trying times we all need some form of vindication to keep our self confidence high...but trying to put the other guy down is not going to get you any respect. Now that was the shrink in me...
I still say whats wrong is trying to get the procedure changed in a way that USCIS will accept I485 form (forget even the EAD) give you a receipt notice and only act on it once the visa number is available. They certainly seem to have some authority in making rules regarding how and when to accept form, as has been seen in early I129 acceptance and concurrent filing issues ?
we are not stupid morons over here. Neither is the AILA/millions of lawyers that are associated with immigration law. Please for heaven sake dont start now about some conspiracy theory about immigration lawyers having a preference for backlog.
there is no loophole, there is no precedent and by emailing the director with a moronic question will only show that probably that we have morons stuck in retrogression and probably we deserve to be stuck.
I dont think anyone should make this a personal issue and try to boast that he/she has complete understanding of the underlying issue while make it seem like everyone else is a buffon. The last thing we want here is people turning against each other and calling names....I can understand that in these trying times we all need some form of vindication to keep our self confidence high...but trying to put the other guy down is not going to get you any respect. Now that was the shrink in me...
I still say whats wrong is trying to get the procedure changed in a way that USCIS will accept I485 form (forget even the EAD) give you a receipt notice and only act on it once the visa number is available. They certainly seem to have some authority in making rules regarding how and when to accept form, as has been seen in early I129 acceptance and concurrent filing issues ?
TexDBoy
09-10 02:03 PM
Committee is still assembling .. proceedings not started yet after recess ..
more...
tooclose
07-12 06:59 PM
That may not be true. I had read somewhere (in this forum) that DOS sets up cut-off dates as 01, 08, 14, and 22, and 01 includes from 1st to 7th, 08 includes 8th to 13th, and so on and so forth.
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
You deserve a happy hour if thats true, since my PD falls within that window :)
Come August 1st, who knows, (strange are the ways USCIS works) his file may be the first one to be picked up and approved before those of March 05 guys, some of whom are still waiting, like Pitha etal.
You deserve a happy hour if thats true, since my PD falls within that window :)
2010 is Stefani Joanne Angelina
yabadaba
09-10 04:07 PM
thx for catching that.. i m sending it now to my school
more...
vik352
07-01 06:12 PM
We already called the local lawmakers. This online petition can have two columns, one for people who are suffering because of this per country quota and other for people who support the idea (Friends/relatives/coworkers). We can start the petition and we may generate 100K signatures.
mpadapa: We will let you have the 1000001th signature:)
mpadapa: We will let you have the 1000001th signature:)
hair Stefani Joanne Angelina
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
more...
FrankZulu
01-31 08:54 AM
Desi3933, I appreciate the time you have taken to explain the details for people in this situation.
hot Stefani Joanne Angelina
chmur
09-10 06:53 PM
It is a given that Demand is not stagnant . If it were , backlog would have been reduced by 140K this year alone.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
more...
house Stefani Joanne Angelina
EB2_Jun03_dude
02-22 11:15 AM
I guess this dude(Greg) does not know @ EB2 India went 'U' even after pushing back Jan 2000.
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
tattoo Stefani Joanne Angelina
kumarc123
04-09 03:37 PM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
more...
pictures Stefani Joanne Angelina
vkraman7
03-17 11:07 AM
Category: EB3 India
PD: Sep 2002
Filed 485 on 07/27/2007
PD: Sep 2002
Filed 485 on 07/27/2007
dresses Stefani Joanne Angelina
memyselfandus
09-20 11:07 AM
I have the domain...ready to transfer: if IV core needs it...
I was just checking the domain name availability. legalimmigrationvoice.com and .org got taken yesterday. Hopefully its the core or someone supporting member of IV.
I was just checking the domain name availability. legalimmigrationvoice.com and .org got taken yesterday. Hopefully its the core or someone supporting member of IV.
more...
makeup GaGa, real name Stefani Joanne
hmehta
11-20 12:50 AM
Probably, at this moment it might still be true but the reality is that it is soon going to be demoted from this position......so there is nothing like missing the opportunity....!!!!
Please do not take any precipitated steps that harm yours status ! Calm down. This is still the strongest economy in the world. You don't want to miss this unique opportunity !
Please do not take any precipitated steps that harm yours status ! Calm down. This is still the strongest economy in the world. You don't want to miss this unique opportunity !
girlfriend Stefani Joanne Angelina
gcnirvana
07-12 04:50 PM
I think you are in. Good Luck!
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
hairstyles stefani joanne angelina
new_horizon
10-20 02:36 PM
I missed on some of the conversation here
- '92-'00 was a good economic time because of the dot com boom.
- the repubs were in charge of the house and senate, and they helped in part to frame/pass the policies during that time.
- the housing sector debacle started in the clinton era, when the dems pushed the fannie may & freddie mac to lower the lending standards to give loans to the people who couldn't afford it. though it sounded like a good objective they all knew that at one point it would boomerang.
- the dems did that for their own purposes:
1. to gain the support of the lower income/middle income population which they did.
2. to fatten their own wallets-they changed the compensation rules so that the more they loan out the more their compensation. the dem guy in charge of the loaning agencies earned 90 mil in 6 years.
3. the top two beneficiaries of contribution from fm/fm were guess who chris dodd & barck obama (barack got 130K in just 3 years). not to mention the favorable interest rates on their mortgage loans.
- the US has prospered so far because of its capitalistic philosophy. it has advanced innovation, and entrepreneurship, because innovators know they'll be compensated for their hardwork. barack recently claimed he want's to spread the wealth around which is a socialist philosophy...you've seen that in the communist countries (no growth, poverty, and low standards).
- barack has had no accomplishment at all...no executive decision made, no major legislation (bills) introduced or passed (let alone through bipartisan efforts). so all of a sudden to assume he's going to bring change is ridiculous. hillary would have made a better president of course the press decides/controls everything now.
- look at the huge spending plan he has (free giveaways to everybody)...to fund that he'll tax you and I (take away whatever money we've saved).
- he's ambiguous on everything...he changed his initial position on almost everything, and not just once (again according to the audience)
I don't think we need to go thru all this again. all i care now is my gc, and I don't think obama is for it. even if he says he's for it, you can't trust him. he'll change his position when it becomes unpopular.
again be rational in your thinking.
p.s with the limited time I had I wrote all this...so don't pounce on any gramatical errors (of course the dems like to do that).
- '92-'00 was a good economic time because of the dot com boom.
- the repubs were in charge of the house and senate, and they helped in part to frame/pass the policies during that time.
- the housing sector debacle started in the clinton era, when the dems pushed the fannie may & freddie mac to lower the lending standards to give loans to the people who couldn't afford it. though it sounded like a good objective they all knew that at one point it would boomerang.
- the dems did that for their own purposes:
1. to gain the support of the lower income/middle income population which they did.
2. to fatten their own wallets-they changed the compensation rules so that the more they loan out the more their compensation. the dem guy in charge of the loaning agencies earned 90 mil in 6 years.
3. the top two beneficiaries of contribution from fm/fm were guess who chris dodd & barck obama (barack got 130K in just 3 years). not to mention the favorable interest rates on their mortgage loans.
- the US has prospered so far because of its capitalistic philosophy. it has advanced innovation, and entrepreneurship, because innovators know they'll be compensated for their hardwork. barack recently claimed he want's to spread the wealth around which is a socialist philosophy...you've seen that in the communist countries (no growth, poverty, and low standards).
- barack has had no accomplishment at all...no executive decision made, no major legislation (bills) introduced or passed (let alone through bipartisan efforts). so all of a sudden to assume he's going to bring change is ridiculous. hillary would have made a better president of course the press decides/controls everything now.
- look at the huge spending plan he has (free giveaways to everybody)...to fund that he'll tax you and I (take away whatever money we've saved).
- he's ambiguous on everything...he changed his initial position on almost everything, and not just once (again according to the audience)
I don't think we need to go thru all this again. all i care now is my gc, and I don't think obama is for it. even if he says he's for it, you can't trust him. he'll change his position when it becomes unpopular.
again be rational in your thinking.
p.s with the limited time I had I wrote all this...so don't pounce on any gramatical errors (of course the dems like to do that).
Abhinaym
07-03 11:16 AM
Taking a benefit of one group, then distribute the pain across the board is not fair to ROW applicants. This is not the solution. You cannot say to us ROW people that we don't understand the fustration of waiting for our GC as well.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.
The point is to not 'distribute pain', it is to reduce the pain of a group.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.
The point is to not 'distribute pain', it is to reduce the pain of a group.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
thesparky007
02-17 06:15 PM
kirupa.com
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
uhhh, look at the post in the very first part of the thread i set up this (http://%0ahttp://www.gamedev.net/community/fo...topic_id=202348) link for a list of a bunch of 3d programs varying from free to over 5k
cool
thx man!
No comments:
Post a Comment