Amid an escalating backlash over bonuses paid to The American International Group, AIG executives, President Barack Obama has said that he would accept the blame, though he also made clear the multimillion-dollar payouts weren't his idea. He said, "so for everyone in Washington who is busy scrambling trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me. I'll take responsibility; I'm the president."

AIG, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.

Whom do you blame most for AIG bonus issue? George W. Bush, Barack Obama, US Congress or someone else?

Should the US Govt ask AIG to pay the money back? How much?

This is rather first time happens in democratic process of our country that every political party has there candidate for the post of Prime minister.from leftist to rightist are now prepared for not repeating blunder as they had earlier.If a small group of MPS will get a chance to join government will never look back.one of the reason is a Independent MLA was become CM of ZARKHAND as many political heads were fighting with each other.statements are coming like earlier selectors for Indian cricket team had to face.all states were trying to get their representation,rather then to built a national team.
Gujarat should feel proud in this regard as grass root level discussions are favouring the style of administration adopted by Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.
by the way one must take the note all states had given RASTRA NETA to Nation.GUJARAT gave RASHTRAPITA to built free Nation.

Ten parties from across the country have come together to launch a Third Front as an alternative to the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the general elections beginning next month. Former prime minister and Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) leader H.D. Deve Gowda, the prime force behind the show of strength, and leaders of Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), the Forward Bloc, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the AIADMK, the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Haryana Janhit Congress have called upon the people to vote for a "democratic and secular" government in the April-May Lok Sabha polls.

Do you believe that successful launch of Third Front has given jitters to both Congress and BJP?

Do you support the claims of leaders of Third Front that they have come together because the country needs a new alternative?

There are remarks that the Third Front is like a 'parking lot' and power hungry, senile and outdated politicians are coming together to try to get power by hook or crook after next elections. Do you approve this?

Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf, considered the architect of the 1999 Kargil war, has warned that there could be more such conflicts if the key dispute and sore point Kashmir remains unresolved for long. The retired Army General, who ruled Pakistan for nine years till last August after seizing power in a bloodless coup, acknowledged that there are a lots of mujahideen in Pakistani society and freelance jehadis who have emotional involvement with the cause of Kashmiris.

Would you term his views as immature?

According to you, what is the best way to solve Kashmir problem?

When our cricket ties with Pakistan are on hold, we should not invite people like Musharaff in India and give him so much importance. Do you support this?

Senior BJP leader and party's prime ministerial candidate L K Advani has suggested a US-style TV debate between prime ministerial candidates. He recalled in 1960 how US people gave different opinions on the Richard Nixon-John F Kennedy Presidential debates after watching it on TV and listening on radio. "Those who saw the debates on TV were debates on TV were swept off and said Kennedy was better," he said adding those who listened to the debates on radio, preferred Nixon. The presidential debate is a unique American democratic institution, an opportunity for the candidates to confront and challenge each other on personality and policy-related issues. The debate is the big moment of an election campaign, a gladiatorial-like television arena allows a nation to compare and contrast candidates.

Do you think debates can make presidents or prime minister?

Is it true that our top politicians are uncomfortable with the idea of being questioned on TV?

While a spirited TV debate can energise a section of the urban middle-class audience, it cannot reach the wider electorate. Do you agree?

According to you, which are the benefits of US-style TV debate between prime ministerial candidates?

Hi...
I read ur article which addressed the relationship between a mother in law and daughter in law.
The article was really interesting depicting a goody goody daughter in law....want to thank you for making the readers n world understand that its not always daughter in law whose at a fault....
In the artilcle it was also questioned that does a daughter in law tries to become a daughter first??
I am not totally agreeable to this sentence...A girl who leaves her family n dear ones to step in an all new world, ofcourse expects love n care from her new family.Since she is new its very obviuos she takes time in learning things as per new envionment.I think a mother in law should take the first step to make the new member of the family comfortable.But as per my my case,a mother in law can never become a mother,because however good the daughter in law be for a mother in law she can never bcome her daughter.A sentence spoken by a mother in law which is I find very true....

"A SON IN LAW CAN BE GREATER THAN A SON,BUT A DAUGHTER IN LAW CAN NEVER EVEN MATCH A DAUGHTER"

Indian companies received a bad news from US President Barack Obama on last Wednesday, when in his first address to the Congress he said that there will be no tax breaks in outsourcing. “We will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas,” Obama said in his first address to the joint session of the US Congress. India’s BPO sector will take a beating with the United States’ economic revival plan not to translate into tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs.

Thus, Obama wants to keep American jobs for American people only. Do you support him?

Is it a prime example of protectionism or blunder? How does this move will affect Indians?

When the U.S. economy stumbles and employment outlook becomes one of the worst in its history, many immigrant workers in the U.S. may be looking towards their home countries to find an adequate job, while their focus is on career prospects. As per a new survey, many Indian immigrants found professional and career prospects far better in their home country than in the U.S. In several cases, better career avenues back home influenced their decision to return.

The study among highly-skilled immigrants, who had worked or received education in the U.S. and later returned to their home, conducted by Harvard professor Vivek Wadhwa revealed that respondents strongly indicated that they felt that professional and career opportunities at home were superior to those in the U.S. According to 68.7 percent of Indian respondents, better professional opportunities were strong factors in their decision to return home.

Do you term career and quality of life as primary reasons for their return?

America will be soon back on its track and then we will say their gain is our loss. Do you think so?