I'm referring to how everyone acts now

We haven't changed, Rose.

look at who his treasurer is.....
think about all the earmarks he tried to push when he was senator alone....not to mention that he said he wouldn't do earmarks. guess it's one of those "read my lips" thing?

I'm not saying AIG isnt at fault. But how can one place blame and say they didnt know about them wen they wrote a stipulation in the bail out that they could keep their retention bonuses.
The bonuses were writin in their contracts when they hired. To keep them working there for a certain amount of time. And according to their contract they should get them if they meet the requirements.
If they somehow take them back which is a breach of contract you will have lawsuits on their hands. As for congress wanting to tax them at 90% thats just unconstitutional. Would you like your employer to tell you ok I'm going to take 20% of your check just because i can?

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 21, 2009; Page D01

As AIG takes billions of dollars from the federal government to stay afloat, it is suing the government for millions more.

This Story
AIG Suing To Recover Taxes in IRS Dispute
Special Report: AIG
The big insurer is trying to recover $306.1 million of taxes, interest and penalties from the Internal Revenue Service. Among other things, AIG is contesting an IRS determination last year that the company improperly claimed $61.9 million of tax credits associated with complex international transactions.

AIG has also asked a court to make the government reimburse it for money spent suing the government.

Given that the government owns 79.9 percent of AIG and has been using taxpayer money to fill a seemingly bottomless hole at the company, the lawsuit might seem like a case of biting the hand that feeds it. But an AIG spokesman said the company has an obligation to press its case.

AIG believes it overpaid the IRS, and it "has a duty to its shareholders, including the government and other shareholders, to insure that it pays the proper amount of taxes," spokesman Mark Herr said by e-mail.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003089.html

why is it people jumped on Bush's "read my lips...no new taxes"
but when Obama says no earmarks....and we have earmarks from everywhere....silence

am I the only one that sees the hypocracy in this?

The earmarks were part of the original stimulus package that Bush started. The House is 40% Republican. The earmarks are a small part of the big package. It's sometimes better to pick one's battles and keep both sides happy so they approve the big items.

i've heard this before. but that leaves 60% of the house left. Obama's plan can run us into the ground

BUT Obama promises budget reform, no earmarks

So far all I know is this....

No matter who the President is, they promise one thing and do another, black white blue or green they all lie cheat and steal. So why do we care anymore? Are we just destined to worry and focus on the inevitability of our country rotting from the white house? As far as me, Im gonna live my life, pay high gas prices, outrageous taxes and spend my time off spinning in my computer chair whistling the theme song to gilligans island!!!

When John McCain mentioned taxing health care benefits, the Obama campaign called it the biggest increase in taxes in U.S. history, and guess what the current admin is looking to tax.

When John McCain said the U.S. economy was basically sound, he was attack as out of touch at best, stupid at worst.
Current admin last week says the economy is ...........basically sound.

I heard the interviews and sound clips on NPR this last week but I can't find it.

Look harder for it.

Oh I found other clips discussing how the Obama admin is seriously looking at taxing these benefits.

Considering that earmark is another word for assignment of who or what the money is for. I doesn't make any sense to have anything against an earmark because they are utilized by all government agencies who hand out money.

In other words someone or some place that has an agenda has lied to you and told you that earmarks are wrong when in truth they are used by all.

For example: so much money in the budget is earmarked for the defense department who then earmarks it for the creation of tanks.

It goes on all the time and if you are against earmarks then you are against any government action assigning money for anything at all.

True

Obama did not say no more earmarks, he couldn't say it.

“I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities,” Obama said.

Free of earmarks for what? What was he talking about? Earmarks are not bad, earmarks for pork is bad. He will not say that he is not going to have no more earmarks since they are just the assignment of where the money goes.

yep....read my lips

Okay but you failed to prove your point.

to you maybe