Video: Wall Street bonuses this year “shameful,” says Obama
posted at 8:43 pm on January 29, 2009 by Allahpundit
Can we get bipartisan consensus on this one, or is there some obvious argument I’m missing for why the worst Dow performance since 1931 merits some sort of “bonus”?
Actually, here’s the argument: You don’t want these poor lovelies to have to date beta males, do you? Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »
Is it any of his business?
mikeyboss on January 29, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I could use the word “shameful” to describe a lot of the Democrats and their finances.
Let’s see.
Barney Frank (Fannie & Freddie & sending money to his bank)
Chris Dodd (Countrywide)
Geithner (taxes)
Rangel (taxes)
Pelosi (tuna)
INC on January 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM
once you let the government in the tent on bonuses, you will never get them out. It is none of Obama’s goddam business.
RedSoxNation on January 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Why the f*** doesn’t he do something about it instead of just whining? Like yank the money from their next dose of rainbow-colored dollar bills with unicorns on them?
Could it be because a solid chunk of his obscene campaign cash just happened to come from the same folks?
Time to impeach Osama Obama before his lunatic plans really get rolling.
And he can take Congress with him.
MrScribbler on January 29, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I believe many have contractual obligations. Anyone else here reading The Forgotten Man? Much of Obama’s rhetoric, to me at least, is sounding Rooseveltesque. And that’s not a compliment.
amerpundit on January 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Let met get this straight. An individual who gets unemployment benefits has to, every month, report their efforts to find a new job, has to pay income taxes on that, has to be constantly surveilled by the state. But it’s none of our business when bailed out investment bankers take taxpayer money and award themselves sums of money 99.9% of Americans can not even think about. We paid those bonuses, you should care. But I guess that’s conservatism. Put the guy on unemployment through a constant surveillance system, let the massively wealthy financial sector take our money without question. Ugh, conservatism..sometimes…
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
The billion dollar candidate lamenting billions in bonuses.
How quaint.
JammieWearingFool on January 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
If you guys find this objectionable you’re wayyyyy out of touch.
crr6 on January 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM
MrScribbler on January 29, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Can we please not turn into the same idiots who baselessly called for Bush’s impeachment for 8 years… it sounds just as stupid when somebody says it here.
DaveS on January 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM
No Mr. President, your spending habits of my tax dollars is shameful.
Skywise on January 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM
If anyone needs evidence of ODS, witness the number of people who will turn around and defend a non-transparent TARP II merely because Obama is now in favor of putting a hold on these guys robbing us blind.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM
By the way, I don’t want to hear from President Wagyu about expensive shameful expenditures in a recession. Or about sacrifices.
amerpundit on January 29, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Does that mean nobody, anywhere deserves a bonus this year? If not, how low down the totem poll should we go before we start allowing those bonuses? How much will the economy improve if we take those bonuses away? Should we just toss them into the stimulus fund and let Congress decide where to spend them? Will all the government officials also give up incentives, bonuses, and salary increases this year? And while we’re at it, can we expect a freeze on hiring and promotions in the government, to cut down those deficits a bit?
I agree that lavish bonuses are inappropriate after poor performance, and some thought must be given to appearances by corporate executives, but we’re never going to pull out of the recessionary spiral if we keep expecting the private sector to behave like it’s in a funereal procession. And while I would agree that no executive of a company that received a bailout should be taking a bonus, I don’t see any non-tyrannical way to stop them… which is why we shouldn’t be giving them bailouts in the first place.
I don’t know about you, Allahpundit, but when I see the guy who asserts the right to suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private economy with only two weeks of planning and eight hours of debate start criticizing the payroll policies of the businesses he’s leeching off of, I get mad at Obama, not the executives.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
The inauguration was 151 million, about the exact same as Dubya’s in 2004 and it came from private donations, not the Federal Government. As did ALL of his campaign expenditures. This is public money they are using to enrich themselves. Are there pills for ODS, Amerpundit needs them.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I found spending 150 million dollars in the middle of a recession on his inauguration shameful. So he and the Wall Street execs are equally contemptible.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Aren’t bonuses usually given for goals met? Did they meet the goals or did they jigger the books to give the appearance of success? The stock holders should probably make a bigger stink and guess what, gang? We are all stock holders now. What did the government do when they bailed out the Savings and Loans?
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Whether it is or it isn’t, it’s none of his damn business.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Your 20 years in a racist church is shameful.
And disgusting.
Save the lectures.
artist on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM
…………… have you even read the “pork” spending bill Mr. Obama?
I didn’t think so……….
Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Um they asked for it. This is not a forceful government intrustion into the private sector. They begged for our money. I’m seriously shocked by people’s cavalier attitude about this. I guess we really have no one to blame but ourselves.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM
That’s a great point!
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Private money v. public money. I know you understand why those things are different right?
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Check out who many of BO’s biggest donors are, and then tell us if you think he’s serious or just blathering as usual.
Cody1991 on January 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Yes, we know all about his credit-card shenanigans, but thanks for the reminder. Anyway. Weren’t the people who complained about the expense of the previous inauguration silly?
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Hey, way to lie like a rug.
Try again, dipstick.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I want to see what Tarp 1.5 and eventually TARP 2.0 look like. If there’s no substantive change in the way we hand out money then it’s just blather. If we actually nationalize the banks as it is growing evident that we have to and have strict controls on bonuses and self enrichment, then I’m OK.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:58 PM
This also seems to be more Alinski:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
INC on January 29, 2009 at 8:58 PM
You are? Oh, thank goodness.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I’ve never been one to complain about the cost of an inauguration, it’s a traditional cultural ritual and its paid for with private donations. But I guess if the goal is to find SOMEWAY to implicate Obama in wall street greed you could talk about the inauguration.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Cindy Munford, (sorry about the ot) I just read your response to my comment last night. I’m so sorry for your loss. I can sympathize w/your husband, I also don’t want to think of a new dog for a while.
4shoes on January 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I wish Obama would stop quoting John McCain
gatorboy on January 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Don’t tell me, tell them.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Why is it OK that Bush was paid for with private donations, but shameful that Obama’s was paid for with private donations? And how does 151 million bucks in private donatoins equate to 18 billion in public funds, i.e. your money?
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Does this guy not have enough on his plate running a
a $2 trillion, I mean $3 trillion, no $4 trillion company?
deptofredundancydept on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
He’s a man of double standards, sure. But he’s right on point on this, even if he turns around and spends .88 on the dollar of taxpayer money on pet projects.
It’s baffling yes, but I am also angry at the greedy on wall st too.
http://www.therightscoop.com
funsutton on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Oh, but it’s totally cool for Congress to spend $1 TRILLION on whatever the **** they feel like and then have a wagyu steak party afterwards. God this guy is a such a hypocrite. What exactly have you ever accomplished in your entire damn life, H?
WisCon on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
IT’S NOT MY MONEY SO I DON’T GIVE A CRAP.
AND IT’S NONE OF THE PRESIDENT’S BUSINESS EITHER.
UNLESS A FIRM IS GETTING A DIRECT BAILOUT WITH TAXPAYER MONEY (AND FED MONEY DOESN’T COUNT), THEN IT’S NOT OUR BUSINESS.
IT’S THE STOCKHOLDERS’ BUSINESS NOT THE TAXPAYER’S.
reliapundit on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Nanny states are shameful.
Anchor babies are shameful.
The stimulus package is shameful.
Obamania is shameful.
Telling Americans to believe in public education but sending your daughters to private school is shameful.
Cranking up the heat in the White House while Americans suffer a very cold winter is shameful.
madmonkphotog on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Uh huh.
amerpundit on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Damn Allah, it’s a bad day for you when I’m the only one who agrees….
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:02 PM
I guess Michelle O’s pay raise from ~ $117+ to ~$300+ was shameful, right?
Let’s see. What did she do to earn it? Nothing other than being married to a senator who got some taxpayer money for her employer.
BO is such a BS artist. Must have something to do with that community rabble-rouzer background.
Cody1991 on January 29, 2009 at 9:02 PM
These firms DID get public funds. Jeez…the ignorance is becoming a little over the top.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:02 PM
a crack smoking prez is shameful
gatorboy on January 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
40 million versus 150 million. I know you understand why those amounts are different right?
He is displaying hypocrisy on a global scale, be it his luxurious inaugurations or his greek columns. To call out those who are wallowing in excess while he does the same is shameful.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Now we’re equating a six figure raise at a hospital to 18 billion dollars in ADDITIONAL compensation for executives at banks who received taxpayer money. What’s next are you going to claim that it was shameful that Malia Obama got an extra 10 bucks a week for doing chores around the white house. It’s a recession! We have to be vigilant about every 10 dollars!!!
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
madmonkphotog on January 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Roger that.
artist on January 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
o/t just heard on the news that Mr. Obama is expanding the Faith Based Initiatives but if they take government money they have to hire non believers and gays.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Again can you please articulate how 18 billion dollars of public money is the same as 151 million in private donations? I’m genuinely curious. I’ll conceede that Obama’s inaguration was more excessive than usual inaugurations (which are all a bit excessive and silly). But there is no possible way you can explain how his privately funded party is the same as 18 billion in public funds. Unless you can in which case I’m seriously interested.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I don’t care what Obama has to say while sitting next to a tax-cheat. The fact that a tax cheat is now the Secretary of the Treasury is “shameful.”
BHO can go screw himself. The Wall Street guys deserve whatever bonuses their employers think they deserve. Its not their fault the market went south.
jimmy the notable on January 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Are you KIDDING? LOL, insanity.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Now we’re equating a six figure raise at a hospital to 18 billion dollars in ADDITIONAL compensation for executives at banks who received taxpayer money.
And the cost of him turning up the White House thermostat is a fraction of the cost of all the thermostats he says should be turned down. You really aren’t very good at this.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM
‘Scuze me, but did he decry the massive amounts of money Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and other dems made looting the financials?
snickelfritz on January 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Our government no longer has any moral authority to challenge anyone over excessive spending.
CP on January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
this is 1931 with a president declaring war on business
RedSoxNation on January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
That pesky 14th Amendment keeps getting in the way. How dare institutions which receive public funds be required to follow the same laws all public employers have to. It’s just wackadoodle. Oh and 18 billion is now less than 151 million, not sure if you knew that, but that’s the latest ODS message.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
amerpundit on January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Perhaps one of these days you’ll figure things out. Maybe not.
Normally, I do not respond to trolls, and this proves my point.
Adios
Cody1991 on January 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Thanks.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
“is there some obvious argument I’m missing for why the worst Dow performance since 1931 merits some sort of “bonus”
I’m not arguing for increased bonuses, but the worst Dow performance has nothing to do with the quality of business leadership.
The crisis was induced by government in many ways, including short-selling by Obama supporters to tank the market throughout 2008, but in particular immediately after the Republican convention when McCain took the lead in the polls.
And of course, who can forget the contributions of the disgusting drooling Barney Franks who has managed to quench his self-loathing by ruining the lives of millions of people.
notagool on January 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
So is wagyu steak and an over-heated Oval Office. Can’t wait to learn of the Super Bowl menu. Shameful, indeed!
YankeeinCA on January 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
He is right and he explains why well.
“Does that mean nobody, anywhere deserves a bonus this year?”
No… just those executives of banks whose leadership was so dire that they needed to be rescued by the US government. Those execs don;t deserve a bonus and if they had any grace at all they would hand back last years huge bonus too.
lexhamfox on January 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Man oh man…his arrogance knows no bounds, his hypocrisy is blinding. The ice gets thinner by the day, keep skating Barry, keep skating!
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 9:09 PM
So it’s okay that he doesn’t practice what he preaches, because his personal expenditure is less than the total expenditure of everyone he’s criticizing. Ask Mommy for another juicebox.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM
AP, it shouldn’t be any of your business — or mine — unless you are a shareholder in that corporation.
Do you believe in capitalism and free market economics? CEOs are accountable to their boards and shareholders who can compensate them as deemed appropriate. If the boards and shareholders fail to fulfill their due diligence, the companies fail. No bailouts evah.
The bailout mentality removes accountability from the marketplace. American capitalism will not recover if smart conservatives and center-right thinkers like AP can be so easily confused about basic free market principles.
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM
It was nearly 4 times as excessive as the last.
It’s a matter of principle. How a man can sit in judgment of those who piss money away like water, while himself doing the same, and at the same time demanding that we “share the wealth”, is not only excruciatingly arrogant, it’s a slap in the face. It’s the equivalent of Rosie O’Donnell claiming Americans should lose weight.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Whether they do or they don’t, it’s none of the business of the president.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:11 PM
How is this a minority opinion on this board….They came begging for our money, threatened the end of the financial system, yet found the time to pay themselves big time. But we’re all up in arms because a single mom might get an extra 100 bucks by claiming she had an extra kid or something. Jesus H. Christ conservative values are f*cked.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. If you condemn someone for taking money from the safe, and then you take money from the safe, does it make you any less of a hypocrite because you took less?
Again, I didn’t catch the $151 million in private donations. I did see, however, the government spending about $124 million.
amerpundit on January 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 8:53 PM
42,300 =/= 151K. Try harder.
Ryan Gandy on January 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Death….you should consider internalizing for the benefit of mankind!
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 9:13 PM
<
Can the attitude, Horse’s Patoot, I was just passing on information.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 9:13 PM
…….. at least he’s wearing a jacket,
but this might not be the Oval Office.
Dude………… it’s freezing outside,
………. light the fireplace.
Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Yet the government can’t “show a little restraint” when their performance has been equally craptastic and they come begging to the American people looking for a handout.
Everybody on the hill got a raise this year.
Bishop on January 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM
This is an argument that your side always uses against leftists who have money and it always strikes me as grossly intellectually dishonest for a couple of reasons.
1. Mark Foley. Yes, Mark Foley. Remember when a lot of folks on your side blamed the media, blamed the Dems, blamed everyone but Mark Foley for his actions. When the argument from the Dem side was that Foley and Congressional Republicans had ran on “family values” had ran against the “homosexual lifestyle” etc. etc. And there the party was defednding creepy IMs with male pages, why? Because they were partisan hacks. And not just the politicians, denizens of boards just like this one. So forgive me when I don’t take your claims that it’s wrong “on principle” with any kind of seriousness.
2. Rush Limbaugh. Yes eriously, Rush Limbaugh. Remember when Rush Limbaugh was revealed to be kind of a drug addict? Remember all through the 90s when Rush said really offensive things about people trying to cope with drug addictions. Remember when, in his defense, Dittoheads round the world said “the messenger may be flawed, but the message was the right one.” I might add they STILL use that argument to defend Rush. So all of this, “but the messenger did some excessive spending too (on a much smaller scale)” rings particularly hollow.
3. Common sense. Yes, common sense. 151 million bucks is not 18 billion. Seriously.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM
No, I’m not kidding. If the Wall Street guys had complete control over the markets, why would the markets ever go down? That’s PRIVATE INDUSTRY. People can talk semantics and say that somebody doesn’t deserve what they earn. “Oh how can you pay that guy 10 million for hitting a ball with a stick? That’s crazy!!” No, its not crazy. If the guy who signs the paychecks thinks that giving that guy 10 million dollars is a good business move, then he’s the guy who suffers if it turns out that it is not a good business move.
jimmy the notable on January 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM
“Cold Cash” Jefferson
Rangel’s car & apartment deals
Frank’s prostitution ring
Teddy’s rape, drinkenness, & murder
BHO’s lies, flip-flops, & cig addiction
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM
With regard to those companies with their hands out it is like giving money to someone standing at a freeway entrance/exit with a sign saying, “Hungry, need money for food” and then later at the gas station seeing the same person filling up their new Lexus SUV.
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Do you think the point might be that he is POTUS and should not be micromanaging private industry? I know you guys think he is the be all to end all but usually being president is a plateful for most men.
Cindy Munford on January 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
The bailout money is the shameful thing, Barry.
Metro on January 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM
TheyThe democrats came begging for our money, threatened the end of thefinancial systemworld as we know it, yet found the time topaypayoffthemselvestheir special interests big time.Jesus H. ChristMother Gaia,conservativeliberal values are f*cked.Bishop on January 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Could you explain to me how government greed is somehow preferable to the Wall Street variety?
ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
If I have this right, it’s the share holders whose business this is, not Obama. And if the shareholders don’t like it they can fix it.
tarpon on January 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
He said irresponsibility.
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
No, but see, Mark Foley, and and and Rush Limbaugh, and… [bangs spork against high-chair tray]
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
The same guy looking to do a $1 Trillion handout is complaining about a few billion? ROFL Heck, I bet these bonus to these individuals do more to stimulate the economy then most of Obama’s programs and I hope the GOP picks up on that.
JeffinSac on January 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Next thing you know he’s going to be holding press conferences when the Cubs lose a game by a wide margin. “The managing job was absolutely shameful. Not pinch-hitting for Ryan Dempster in the 5th was the height of irresponsibility.”
jimmy the notable on January 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Itchee Dryback on January 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
That is what it sounded like the way Obama said it. He should have said – those companies with their hands out. He is not so smart.
MB4 on January 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
What’s more “shameful”?
What has more “irresponsibilty”?
Their $18 Billion, or
the $850 Billion you’re putting on the backs of our children?
jgapinoy on January 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
You’re welcome.
4shoes on January 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Once more with feeling and perhaps slower in order to make it a little easier.
Banks.
Asked.
Us.
For.
A.
Bailout.
Obama did not storm into the banks, observe their practices and say “we need to take you over.” They literally threatened the end of our economy if we did not fork over 700 billion bucks. It was a shakedown of epic proportions and their response was to shovel money to offshore tax heavens and, apparently, enrich themselves to the tune of 18 billion dollars. Do you not remember yesterday? You know, when *everyone* on this site hated TARP. We’re not TARP fans because Obama called them out? How is that anything but massive levels of ODS.
And here’s the thing no one is really responding to. When a poor family gets welfare benefits we claim the right to be all up in their kool aid. We claim to observe people buying stake with food stamps and get into a huffy. We’re mad because we read an article about welfare recipients buying a flat screen TV. But when investment banks get 700 billion bucks in welfare and spend 18 billion (at least) merely on their own personal enrichment, it’s none of our busines. Can someone like..respond to that?
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:23 PM
What are you even talking about? You’re making some broad argument about how Republicans are hypocrites? its funny how when people bring up Rush, they NEVER try to dissect his message, they simply call him a “moron drug addict.”
I should simply respond to everything that BHO does by calling him a “coke head.” since apparently anything anyone ever did at any point in the past is fair game in insulting him now. Forget the fact that GWB was a reformed, former alcoholic who was clean for over a decade (I think), he was still a “coked-up fratboy” to the hateful denizens of the left.
jimmy the notable on January 29, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Hack……… is a better description, someday when you growup and have a job and a family you will understand, but don’t rush, enjoy childhood, it is the best of times.
dmann on January 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM
I also remember that NOW seemed to be pretty cool with Clinton getting intern nookie; a few years earlier they were outraged that Clarence Thomas might have made a joke about pubic hair on a Coke can.
Like what?
ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Actually, what is “shameful” is getting elected POTUS without having ever accomplishing a damn SINGLE THING in your entire life, or having failed at everything you attempted, except getting a Free Ride on the US Taxpayer due to Affirmative Action!
Or, how about this being “shameful”; getting elected to the US Senate, using US Taxpayer money to pass $1M Dollars per day of Pork back to your corrupt local government, including a $1M Dollar Earmark to your Wife’s Employer, in exchange for her getting an instant “promotion” and an almost doubling of her salary, subsequently, and then denying there was no Quid Pro Quo!
THAT’S “Shameful”!
Need I continue?
Dale in Atlanta on January 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Actually, they forced the bailout on quite a few banks.
jimmy the notable on January 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I didn’t realize we’d skipped European socialism and gone straight to a planned economy.
This teaching moment will no doubt be lost on Barry. The Prez is outraged when publically traded company executives are paid big salaries and bonuses after asking for company handouts but He obviously sees nothing wrong with using the coercive power of the government to compel you and your family to make generational payments on goodies for his party’s constituents.
I’ll pour myself a drink and join the moral outrage party as soon as Barry strikes out all the welfare pork for things like std prevention and condoms.
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
HEY OBAMA,
IT’S NONE OF YOUR FREAKIN’ BUSINESS.
iamse7en on January 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Apparently not…
DeathToMediaHacks on January 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
I don’t remember the President of the United States of America telling welfare recipients not to buy steak with their food stamps, let alone a stake.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »