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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Here’s a thought:
“Look at me, Obama”!
Look the people straight in the eye and tell them that they are going to have to swallow Nancy Pelosi’s ginourmous crap sandwich without a diet coke (hat tip.. NYC). Without question. Without examination and the chance to look at what we are about to eat before we have to bite it. Without oversight. Without regard to the taxpayers that will fund this ginourmous crap sandwich that will not put people to work, but the big crap sandwich will buy us condoms and teach us all about STD’s. And birth control.
Got news for you San Fran Nan… I gotsta unemployed in August. I did not want the government cheese. Started my own business. Now self sufficient. I’m opting out of your ‘stimuli’ and will no longer pay taxes. Many will follow. Few will lead. Hear that, SanFranNan?
You can raise my taxes, but that DOES NOT mean that I will pay them. And… I won’t.
Key West Reader on January 29, 2009 at 10:27 PM
You people are iNsane
klinkink.wordpress.com on Jan 29,2009 at 10:07PM.
klickink.wordpress.com:
Thats crazy talk!
“You People”! That sounds like political verbage from
the other political party,no?
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
No whining at Hot Air.
FIFY, klickink.
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Have you read the bill? Any of it? I’m thinking not. LOL
ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Can someone explain what the difference is between the executives getting bonuses to enrich themselves and the politicians in Washington getting pork add to legislation in order to buy votes, to enrich themselves?
belad on January 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Free speech for thee, but not for he?
Cheshire Cat on January 29, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Actually, they could appoint a judge like bankruptcy, place a wage freeze, legislate, or just say no to the other 350 billion.
You are arguing contracts on companies that need our money to survive.
The government is in an excellent position to dictate terms but when you support this outrage, it does not help the American taxpayer.
Amazing mindset I see here but at least our President was outraged .
I guess to be expected when your leader is a radio personality.
Have a good evening.
getalife on January 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM
A deep, halting baritone.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Key West Reader on January 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Shocked. Shocked. Shocked.
Crap. WE are to blame for every crook we re-elect to Congress. We need new players because the game is not going to change. Character matters.
Angry Dumbo on January 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM
onlineanalyst on January 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Most of the words are English, but their arrangement seems to have no discernible pattern.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The United States has become a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.
Tav on January 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The bonuses are actually earned. The pork we pay for.
Tommy_G on January 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Oh look. Another person who mistakenly thinks the first amendment applies to the ability of a citizen to say whatever they want on someone else’s private property, rather than it protecting them against government censorship.
MadisonConservative on January 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM
It appears after 8 years of BDS,Liberal brains have
become politicaly pickled,so to speak,and boy oh boy,
now that the Liberal Party is in POWER,
every single Liberal,wants his/or/hers RETRIBUTION
OF REVENGE,its a INSANE LIBERAL WORLD gone done mad,
real bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 10:36 PM
My Rep is a Republican who of course voted against the monstrosity. Right now, I’m pleased.
ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I’m beginning to think deathtomediahacks is Allah’s sock puppet.
Buford Gooch on January 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Everything has a moral if only you can find it. Of course every rule has it’s exceptions.
Cheshire Cat on January 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Or that “free speech” means speech that everyone automatically must agree with, or else keep silent.
ddrintn on January 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I’ve looked at various wall st/financial service jobs online and am under the impression that a significant portion of annual salaries come in the form of bonuses. I’m also assuming that there is a relationship between bonus payouts and production numbers.
The financial services sector appears to be a pretty fluid environment in which people frequently jump ship to go from one firm to the other while chasing bigger paychecks. If true, it makes a great deal of sense to pay bonuses to top performers to keep them in place in the wake of massive dislocations within the industry. When brokers and investment bankers move, I suspect they also take part of their business with them.
Obviously this sector is an easy target but I suspect that paying out generous bonuses to top performers is actually a fairly efficient way of securing your bottom line and the integrity of your firm.
But perhaps someone else has personal experience which could shed some light on this issue.
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Oh i forgot to add:
Even on a Republican website,the Left would ask,
‘You People’,Republicans,again, on a Rightsphere Blog,
TO SHUT THE H#LL UP,
because the Liberals now run ‘THE SHOW!!!!
—————————————-
The answer, “NUTS”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on January 29, 2009 at 10:41 PM
A gypsy mopping sweat upon his brow
Might it be this gypsy of yours stands before you now?
It could be him!
It could be you!
Ode’s fish, it could be me!
That scalawag could be most any sod
PercyB on January 29, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Exactly. I’ve said this 3 times tonight, but everyone want s to talk about crap that doesn’t even get close to the issue.
genso on January 29, 2009 at 10:44 PM
This guy’s out eating the finest steaks on earth and keeping the Oval Office hot enough to cook marshmallows,, wearing the finest suits and dressing his wife up with choice diamonds and he’s complaining about CEO bonus’s!!!
Good living is only for governing elite, I guess!
JellyToast on January 29, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Someone’s probably already mentioned this, but most low-to-mid level Wall Streeters primary source of compensation is their year-end bonus which is based on what they sell. Since there was a LOT of selling going on last year, they got a bonus. Maybe they should have taken their bonus an re-sodded the Mall, but they still earned it according to the rules.
tgibson1962 on January 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I confess that I am short on the facts, and have only what the worthless MSM has given me on this topic. But this is what I think I know: the government has directly or indirectly bailed out each and every one of the brokerage houses in question with hundreds of billions of tax dollars.
They, in turn, have rewarded their managers and staff with troughly the same bonuses that they did in previous years when they made serious profits.
If that is in fact correct, then I want my fucking $18 billion back.
If that is not true, then never mind.
Jaibones on January 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM
PercyB, if you see ManlyRash ’round these parts, please tell him we miss him.
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM
The New York Treasury is in crisis because these bonuses are about 45% SMALLER than they were last year and the state isn’t getting nearly the tax revenue it did. So in that respect, liberals should want the salaries to be higher.
But Obama knows nothing about economics and hates capitalism, so this really is none of his business.
ashleymatt on January 29, 2009 at 10:58 PM
I love how the obvious trailer trash that constitutes the majority of commentators on this site are all appalled that anyone would dare criticize their hard-earned money being awarded to corrupt bankers. Talk about false consciousness. If I kicked most of you in the sack and BO complained you’d probably defend me and say he does worse.
Also, take a goddamned intro to logic course. Answering everything by pointing to something Obama does is not addressing the question at hand.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Listen up you socialist weasels, let’s get one thing straight.
It is not up to Herr Obama to dictate how the money was spent. It wasn’t stipulated in the legistlation HE wrote, it wasn’t stipulated in the contract many of the companies were FORCED to sign, it wasn’t stipulated in the government regulations that FORCED these companies to take riskier loans so Obama’s socialist ACORN arm could pat themselves on the back about how many homes THEY built.
The money was given to the companies for them within certain limitations and, guess what, the companies are COMPLYING WITH THOSE LIMITATIONS.
This is why we (*he conservatives) said NO BAILOUT. Did you listen? No. And now you’re whining because you don’t like how the money is being spent. Well guess what socialist bozos… the credit markets ARE STABILIZED. But there’s no trust in the markets because Herr Obama is flooding the country with TRILLIONS OF worthless paper and threatening punishment with anybody who doesn’t play his way.
No Herr President. YOUR ACTIONS AND YOUR POLITICAL PARTY’S disgraceful spending bill which has no other action than to pay off your lobbyists and constituencies (yea, you’re already threatening to withhold funding to the state of Illinois AND Republican states) is shameful.
Does not the rejection of a 50 million dollar private jet NOT HURT business?!
Was the 18 billion given as bonuses to executives who SAVED THEIR COMPANY’S A**ES and thus TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF UNITED STATES value and MILLIONS OF JOBS too much out of your $1,000,000,000 pork-rind bill that you claim might save 3 million jobs?
I’d say the 18,000,000,000 split out over a hundred people and companies was a bargain.
Kindly STFU Mr. President.
Skywise on January 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Weren’t we all outraged about this once before ? Remember when we got this news about the 2007 bonuses last time – when was it- oh yea it was October right before the election.
Then people realized after the election that Congress failed to write any oversight into that shotgun wedding known as TARP. Oh remember how upset folks were – they wrote their congress people, protested and demanded that the crap sandwich be re-written or eliminated,and it was we won! oh wait that never happened – we were all still drunk on Obama love.
So why are we hearing about this again today? What happened today, or yesterday(?), that would make anyone feel like talking about this again?
batterup on January 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Needs more seething.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Pay attention to what genso and moxie_neanderthal have been saying.
onlineanalyst on January 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Yes. They had a contractual agreement that neither Obama nor you have any right to invalidate.
Criticize? You bet. Go right ahead. In fact, don’t buy stock in a company that makes such terrible decisions. But no, I do not care for Obama criticizing businesses for upholding their contractual obligations. When you whinge about it, it’s a private citizen decrying wasteful stupidity. When he does it, it’s a prelude to nationalization.
How’s about we comment on how he’s giving a “bonus” to the perennially inept federal government in the form of a “stimulus” pork sandwich?
spmat on January 29, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Gimme some of that Wyaku steak. And now for some Obama Wyaku Hiaku
Wyaku Steak served
Obama must eat so good
To save the world
Warm heat for the One
We will sacrafice for him
Servants one and all
bloggless on January 29, 2009 at 11:06 PM
But if we don’t let him control every aspect of our lives we’re all gonna die!
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Treacher: You crack me up…in a good way. I love pithy trenchant humor.
Terrie: We all miss ManlyRash, but he has his own website now. Check out manlyrash.com.
onlineanalyst on January 29, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM
So let me get this straight: You hated the idea of bailing out Wall St. even if it meant a total economic catastrophe but your just dandy with that bailout money being used to pay for bonuses out of your own pocket?
Is Sarah Palin’s big boast that she took on the corrupt business interests in Alaska?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:08 PM
You don’t have that straight. I don’t blame you, though, because you’re obviously a bit dim.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
See, that’s what I mean. Less is more. Solid gold. Mr. T, your prose is truly conservative.
Meanwhile, Ace is penning “haiku” inspired by Blago’s impeachment.
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Skywise on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
This president complains about money people get on wallstreet who actually do something yet in the pork bill, there is 5 billion dollars for ACORN. That should be illegal.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Oh I forgot to say, “Why wouldn’t they award bonuses TWICE that size? Why wouldn’t they just run the damn companies into the ground?” They are going to get bailed out anyway.
As I saw written on someone’s back windshield last week:
PREPARE FOR THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF AMERICA
ashleymatt on January 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Are you capable of making a logical argument or do your abilities begin and end with banal insults?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Skywise on January 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Um, no. I didn’t say that.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Pfft,..pot meet kettle.
christene on January 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM
You’ll have to give me something more to work with, dear. Not that your tired insults and strawman arguments aren’t fascinating.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
+1
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Dazzle us with your intellectual brilliance teach.
getalife on January 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Was Sarah Palin’s main boast not that she was a reformer in Alaska, specifically that she took on corruption in the oil industry?
If I slept with your wife and Obama scolded me, would you be angrier at him or me? Him right? Because he’s a foreign-born Wahhabi Marxist child killer?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:20 PM
I think they failed to comprehend without our money, there are no banks, no jobs and no bonuses.
Their contractual argument does not include this reality.
getalife on January 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I don’t take requests.
Somewhere in this babble, you seem to be calling corporate bonuses “corruption.” I guess because they’re like corporations, maaaan.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Your words not mine and the child killing charge has yet to be proven.
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Good Lord LOL!!!
Dritanian on January 29, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Because you know exactly the company’s and what amounts were paid in bonuses and how much bailout money they took in percentage… right?
Skywise on January 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Old, outmoded capitalist system: Companies produce goods purchased freely by consumers, competing to attract the most customers with superior quality or price. Stockholders in companies hire best executive talent available to guide their enterprises, competing with each other by offering pay and benefits to attract the best talent, with the executives free to accept or reject any offer. Poor choices by executives result in diminished profitability, which leads stockholders to replace the executives. Failure of stockholders to do this results in company bankruptcy.
New, improved socialist economic model: Majority of income generated by private economy placed into giant government-controlled fund, and allocated by several hundred legislators under the near-total control of a president elected by 53% of voters. None of these people understands, or has even read, the five-year economic plan they cobbled together over the last two months, and debated for roughly eight hours. Private sector is expected to survive by somehow using the money they have left to generate miraculous profits, which will then be taken away from them. Executives failing to provide wise leadership for their companies will be bailed out by government funds, provided their business is large enough to make its failure scary, as determined by the subjective emotions of the media and the people who respond to their public opinion polls. Companies will do business with whomever the government tells them to, whether their business model supports it or not. The ability of government-approved consumers to actually pay for their purchases is irrelevant.
I don’t know, guys.. the new system seems quite efficient to me, as well as being virtually immune to the law of unintended consequences. Every time I start having doubts about it, I reflect upon Mark Foley’s e-mails and Rush Limbaugh’s drug use, and think about how evil Wall Street is, and it makes me feel much better.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Do you think that corporations, like individuals, have any responsibility to what actual conservatives used to call the commonweal, or do you just think society is just a place where we try to get rich and don’t give a fuck about anyone?
They received billions from the taxpayers of the United States, many of whom are dirt poor and they used some of it to pay themselves bonuses. Do you know how many children go to bed hungry in the U.S. every night or wear clothes from the Salvation Army? Why should they be paying a CEO’s bonus? If it’s not corruption, it’s the height of shamefulness and yet you don’t want to agree because then someone might think you agree with BO and because you worship the free market as your GOD.
But then I must be a f%&cking Commie to talk like that right?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
The problem is illustrated in the above statement. A lesson: being a private entity and, therefore, not being part of the government, Hot Air, LLC is not required by law to allow free speech on its property.
baldilocks on January 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM
No, I think his abilities begin with banal insults, and end with devastating one-sentence smackdowns.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
So it’s okay for Obama to have $100 steak and spend billions for his cronies, but it’s not okay for someone to get a bonus?
ThomasB. on January 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Oh I know, like when he said “you’re dim”. That was brilliant. They guy’s our generation’s H.L. Mencken.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Let the record show that alex342, an Obama apologist, referred to the President as “a foreign-born Wahhabi Marxist child killer.”
This is why it’s darn near impossible to have a reasonable debate with a liberal or so-called progressive. When they cannot win an argument on the facts, they set up a right-wing extremist straw man as their opponent so they can feel superior. Then they scurry back to their internet buddies and tell them that some right-wing extremist over at Hot Air called Obama “a foreign-born Wahhabi Marxist child killer.”
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 11:35 PM
The question is whether they have a responsiblity to the government. They do not. But as you point out, some children go to bed hungry. Also, somewhere a sad clown sniffs a flower with a tear in his eye.
And yes, you do sound like a bit of a commie, f%&cking or otherwise.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:36 PM
I sure didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Wrong on all counts, friend. I’m not an Obama apologist, not even a supporter.
Where’s the straw man though? Read just about any thread on this site and you find frequent references to “Osama Obama”, etc., etc., and how the U.S. is on the brink of Stalinism. I threw the other in just to make fun.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:39 PM
But then I must be a f%&cking Commie to talk like that right?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
No, f%$cking Commies know how to spell.
tgibson1962 on January 29, 2009 at 11:39 PM
alex342, mhhhhhh, something just for you. It might balance your senses.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:36 PM
No, that isn’t the question. What does the government have to do with a misuse of taxpayer dollars? Surely you don’t think that money belongs to the government do you? Maybe you’re the Commie.
If you weren’t totally unlettered you might have actually read something by Russell Kirk or heard of Robert Taft, you know, the people who actually started the conservative movement. They had this silly idea that maybe we actually have an ethical duty to care for our neighbors and prevent exploitation. You’re not a conservative, you’re an anarcho-capitalist.
And yeah, maybe somewhere a sad clown does shed a tear for children in America who are hungry and poor, you POS. I hope you never face adversity in your life and want sympathy.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Exactly right. That’s the first question that should pop into your mind: Is Obama now trying to say that because the stock market is down, all corporations should regard bonuses as evil? Is he now saying that bonuses are inherently evil? If a company is doing great even though the economy is bad, wouldn’t bonuses be an appropriate way to reward those who are doing their job well?
All very true. It is not the government’s business to get involved in such questions. I know there will be a lot of people saying that the bailouts have made it the government’s business. The government would certainly have to right to attach “strings” to their bailouts, but they need to be specified up front, not snuck in by default.
Isn’t Obama here just trying to stigmatize corporations, and by extension capitalism, as a bunch of heartless bastards who need to be reined in for the good of the country?
Why would any conservative fall for it?
Couldn’t agree more with you. For once.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 29, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Why is that just for me? Yeah, I agree with her, it’s a waste. Shit, you’re either a Marxist Obama supporter libtard or a good HAer, right? Very black and white world eh? No in between at all?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:46 PM
If anybody has any idea what this kid is talking about, feel free to jump in.
I’ve never claimed to be either one, but okay. And I’m not sure what any of that has to do with Obama swooping in and saving us from the evil corporate guys with their evil corporate bonuses.
Then the businessman hit the poor children over the head with their big bags of money and laugh until their monocles pop out. What in the world are you yammering about?
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:48 PM
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Click on his name and look at his blog.
He considers himself a satirist.
He writes crap like this:
“Happy Anniversary to me (posting stupid crap on the Internet)”
Geez.
getalife on January 29, 2009 at 11:51 PM
With every post you reveal how much of a media hack you are. I can just about guarantee you were wallowing in the old “culture of corruption” propaganda that helped the Dems take back Congress. But you can’t see any corruption around Obama! Maybe we should send you dark glasses and a white cane….
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 29, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings either, sweetie.
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Wow, and you’re the guy everyone thinks is such an asset to this site huh? It’s alright don’t try to understand it all immediately, let it sink in for a few hours and then come back and read it again.
I said that corporations have responsibility for the society in which they do business. You said “no, the question is whether they have a responsibility to government.” I said, “wtf are you talking about, they misused taxpayer money.”
No, they don’t hit them over the head with their money-bags. They just take money they are not entitled to and hard-working Americans foot the bill.
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Can you quantify the references you cite as a percentage of the total comments in each thread? I visit a lot of conservative and center-right forums and, to be blunt, AllahPundit and Cap’n Ed don’t run the kind of site you describe. That’s why so many of us post here and nowhere else.
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Yeah, that’s it! We have an ethical duty to care for our neighbors and prevent exploitation! And if we won’t do it voluntarily, we should be FORCED to do it, by having the government seize control of trillions of dollars! That sure sounds like Russell Kirk to me.
Hang your unlettered head in shame, Treacher. Somewhere, out there in the cold winter night, Alex is watching through a frosty window as a hungry child clutches his painfully empty stomach and hopes the government will nationalize the food industry before he starves… and the Force-ghost of Robert Taft silently materializes beside him, thinking of Treacher and clenching his glowing fists.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
alex342, it was meant just for you, to calm your nerves, to show that Obama is a hypocrite to lecture anyone.
Shit, you’re either a Marxist Obama supporter libtard or a good HAer, right? Very black and white world eh? No in between at all?
I despise the middle of the road, socialism, mediocrity. It’s not worth living like that.
They had this silly idea that maybe we actually have an ethical duty to care for our neighbors and prevent exploitation.
“Exploitation” was in the 19th century. The new form of it is what Obama and his string holders espouse. Yes, it’s good to be helpful, and nice, but it should never be mandated by government decree.
I hope you never face adversity in your life and want sympathy.
If you ever do, I’ll at least feed you. Whatever you’ll do, do not depend on the government to help you, ever.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
You have a brilliant nom de internet, really.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM
How many of your Dickens-esque children in rags are paying taxes? Like none. In case you’ve not noticed the % of our great republic pulling the ever increasing tax load is dwindling. Moreover, the Prez wants the rest of us to start stroking “refund” checks to folks that didn’t pay in the first place. Give me a break.
Perhaps you’ve not heard, but a 30 yr old middle class adult will be able to qualify under a healthcare program (schip) that was sold as another plan for the poor.
Frankly I’m more than a little pissed that an increasing amount of MY money is being coerced out of my family’s budget and spent by this government on people who don’t need it or deserve it. Then on top of it all, I’m told to stop being so greedy and give more and give it gladly. WTF?
Are you serious?
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Set your watch and hold your breath.
Are you drunk?
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Jim Treacher on January 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I do enjoy good humor but do not see it in your writings or art.
Tell us a good joke last comic standing.
getalife on January 29, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Terrie on January 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
The guys that operate this site seem to be reasonable, albeit I don’t agree with everything they write. Many people on this site seem to consider them borderline Obama supporters themselves though and many times I’ve seen someone calling for Allahpundit to be fired because he doesn’t foam at the mouth enough.
Doctor Zero on January 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM
That is a common non-sequitur used by neoliberals like yourself. You are not being forced. You live in a democratic country where a duly elected government is spending money in accordance with a program it articulated to the public who largely accepted it. What are you saying? No-one should ever be forced to pay taxes?
alex342 on January 29, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Here’s a good one: How do you keep a moron in suspense?
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Only from the fracking government – you should redirect your wrath toward the politicians, unless you’re a bleeding socialist.
Schadenfreude on January 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Hey Treacher! You’re ticking off the right people. As usual. :)
baldilocks on January 30, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Of course not. You’re always the bullseye on the shooting target. Hard to see in such a condition.
Schadenfreude on January 30, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Wow. And they say we go back too far in “venerating” Reagan.
Maybe we just don’t want to see millions of people exploited by a bunch of dumbasses in DC.
The time-honored lib tactic. If you can’t argue the facts, ad hominem comes in very handy.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:03 AM
He’s a supah freak!!!
Isn’t electing presidents based on racial guilt awesome!!!!
Hening on January 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Wall Street bonuses this year “shameful,” says Obama
Well, he should know, all he has to do is look at his staff.
N4646W on January 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Lame.
Figures, cons are not funny.
getalife on January 30, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Why do corporations/businesses have a special responsibility that you as a regular citizen are somehow relieved?
They have no more responsibility than the next citizen. The great sham of the 20th century was to foist the ambitions of the left onto the backs of someone else and have them foot the bill.
Nice to be dolling out the checks and perks when someone else has to pay. But in fact, all of the ambitions of govt largess are paid by the citizen consumer in the end.
At some point the political economics of big govt will dictate that a greater tax burden be paid by the few and fewer taxes paid by a growing voter base.
moxie_neanderthal on January 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
moxie_neanderthal on January 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM
I don’t think the children are paying taxes. I’m saying that there have been many good studies done on varying degrees of hunger or lack of other basic necessities in the U.S. and that there are often children in such households. I would rather see some money go to them or the people like the elderly WWII vet who literally froze to death in his home last week because his the hydro co. shut off his power, instead of some psychopath on Wall St. to purchase another mansion. It that makes me a socialist, so be it.
Obama is beside the point. He’ll be gone in eight years and you’ll be bitching about someone else. I could care less about him. I don’t support him. It just amazes me that everyone piles on him because he complained about this bonus thing.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I’ll bet you think Jon Stewart is a riot.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Don’t take my word for Treacher’s praiseworthiness. How many times has Instapundit linked to your posts and how many high profile blogrolls include your site?
Terrie on January 30, 2009 at 12:08 AM
No, I’d be angry at you. Now, if Bill Clinton scolded you, I’d be just as pissed at him for being a gigantic hypocrite.
By the way, go shave your head. The hair is putting too much pressure on that small of a brain.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 12:09 AM
I’ll bet you think Jon Stewart is a riot.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Well, he is no Jim Treacher.
getalife on January 30, 2009 at 12:09 AM
You need to go hold your head underwater to see how long you can hold your breath before you drown.
Then hold your head underwater for 10 minutes longer than that.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »