FoxNews.com posted an article in its politics/first100days section that I think would be useful on this board.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009...

It’s not that I don’t believe that BHO would make such a moronic move, it just looks like the times article is a little misleading. For now the people who actually run the program are saying it is still up and running.

This simply cannot be allowed. These men and women risk their lives every day, for us. They deserve our respect, gratitude, and OUR loyalty. The president has already turned a deaf ear to the opposition. My representatives in congress will be aware of my opinion on this matter.

The federal government (Bush and BHO) has “invested” a tremendous amount of money in AIG. I’m sure most people would agree with me that this was obviously a mistake. But, being that the federal government now controls some 80% of AIG, it had the ability to attempt to renegotiate the compensation agreements with the executives. None of the articles I have read have mentioned anything of the sort. Companies that engage in poor business practices deserve what they get. Bankruptcy would have allowed for restructuring as well as for the adjustment of compensation agreements. The simple fact remains that this current “outrage” is nothing more than misdirection. Apparently Harvard Law has replaced its contracts class with a magic class. This is an obvious attempt to redirect the sheeple away from the true source of incompetence.

While we are on the subject of contracts….when a politician stands in front of a group of potential voters and says that he/she is going to do something in return for their vote is that not a verbal contract? And if it is in fact a verbal contract, if one party fails to hold up their end of the contract is it not void?