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 »
Stewart is poorer for it. Na na na na na, na! Come on now, you can do better in defending your party than that, surely!
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:10 AM
moxie_neanderthal on January 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Sorry, I tried to respond but my comment didn’t post. Whenever an actual discussion starts on here the powers that be start to get nerrrrrvous.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM
A little demonstration of liberal frustration. They just cannot win on the facts. Ever. And they know it.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM
This is the real issue: an attempt to stigmatize businesses and capitalism. “How dare you make money when some others are having such a hard time!”
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Sounds like somebody’s about to take his ball and go home.
Anyway, I think the point is that not long ago, a young orphan was huddled under a threadbare blanket in the falling snow, just trying to sell enough matches to afford a humble supper. A bloated plutocrat waddled by, counting his fat wads of cash, and unthinkingly knocked the matches from her hand. The matches became soaked in a frigid puddle of slush and she starved to death. That night the businessman dined on the finest lamb and chuckled at the thought of her last, shivering breath. Tragically, Barack H. Obama would not be elected President of the United States in time to save her life. THE END
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Funny how Obama bashes wall street for bonuses while his buddies like the Google brothers are left alone. What is more egregious… having a 737 and 747 party planes or $18 billion bonus split among 20,000 people? If anything Obama should be bashing the greed of the Google brothers, but that won’t happen since they helped buy the election for Obama.
ThomasB. on January 30, 2009 at 12:14 AM
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM
So you have no problem with a company going to D.C. to ask for bailout money (SOCIALISM) and then still awarding themselves billion dollar bonuses.
Yes, government waste is bad. Private corruption is also bad. Can’t they both be bad? Why is it just one or the other with you people?
Honest to god, I could probably kick ThereGoesTheNeighborhood in his balls until he puked and he’d get up and shake my hand for being a great American just because I’m not Obama and I don’t work for the government.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Your comment doesn’t post if certain profanities are present, or for some reason when CNN links are posted.
You can keep the tinfoil hat, though. It covers up the lobotomy scars.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Stewart is poorer for it. Na na na na na, na! Come on now, you can do better in defending your party than that, surely!
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Great, we will see Jim host the Academy Awards or produce a spinoff Bill O’Reilly character with both making millions?
I had no idea I was talking to a celebrity.
How many movies has the famous Jim Treacher acted in or how many shows has he done?
getalife on January 30, 2009 at 12:18 AM
It isn’t “one or the other”. I don’t like either. But private business, however corrupt, doesn’t have the coercive power of government. Also, government is using MY money. Clear?
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Are you such a narrow-minded fanatic that you can’t discuss any issue like poverty among your own countrymen without obsessing about Barack Obama?
And does making fun of others’ real and painful misfortune make you feel good? How do you feel about the 93 year-old WWII vet who froze to death in his own shitty little house because he didn’t have the cash to buy his electric bill. Do you think a sad clown is crying for him. You’re sure as hell not, are you? Just so long as the hydro co. got what it was legally entitled to right and the government didn’t interfere, right?
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:19 AM
What does that have to do with defending the lib line? Is that all the defense you can muster? Typical.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM
buy=pay. You’ll probably want to comment on my spelling mistakes instead of my argument.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM
How many needy people who can’t pay their electric bills do you seek out to help personally?
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:21 AM
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Jim is the grammer police here.
getalife on January 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Might I suggest this humble fix, sir.
Laura in Maryland on January 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Or are you the typical liberal who’s really generous when it comes to the money of others?
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:21 AM
AD HOMINEM. If I helped zero would that make one ounce of difference to my argument? The truth: I haven’t done anywhere near enough to help others when I could have. But again, address the argument, don’t worry about me.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Grammar.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Do you see the headline to this post?
No, but your sputtering faux-outrage is a hoot.
Now that you mention it, I think it sucks. I’m also against world hunger, child abuse, and Ashton Kutcher movies. What does it have to do with what we’re talking about?
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:23 AM
No, it tells me a lot about the depth of your concern. Ad hominem in response to ad hominem. “You cons don’t CARE about anyone!!!!!” Yeah? Do you? Or do you just salve your conscience through the knowledge that the good old Dem party does your work for you, allegedly?
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Grammar.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:23 AM
It was an opening for Jim’s brilliant comedy.
My bottle is empty, perhaps he will be funny tomorrow.
Good evening.
getalife on January 30, 2009 at 12:25 AM
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
You don’t want to think about people like that guy who apparently had no-one to care for him and needed help. You’d rather try to discredit me personally. You’d rather tell me why I’m a bad person and a hypocrite and a typical liberal. You don’t want to think about the fact that maybe the government should do something to prevent people freezing to death in their own homes after fighting in foreign wars.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:26 AM
How many have you done? There’s nothing more ‘wonderful’ than an elephant being attacked by a mosquito.
Schadenfreude on January 30, 2009 at 12:27 AM
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Take your head out of your a** for two minutes. Stop trying to place everyone is your binary, two-dimensional world. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of different views that don’t fall under “Republican” and “Democrat”.
Ignorant people like you always belie there ignorance with black-white arguments because they don’t appreciate nuance. Allahpundit likes that word right?
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Sure I do, which is why I volunteer to help in various ways. What’s keeping you back? Waiting for Obama?
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Somebody mop up the tears please.
baldilocks on January 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM
So the moral of the story is: If we don’t let Obama decide how much money we should be able to make, children will starve and old people will freeze to death. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Again, if I’m the worst human being and biggest hypocrite on the planet, what does that have to do with a man who risked his life for his country and died because the hydro co. didn’t get it’s money on time?
But only the government could have stopped the co. from doing that right. So a good “conservative” (re: fanatical capitalist) would have to oppose that and let him die like an animal right? After all, it’s not the government’s business. If he didn’t have any friends or relatives, f*** him, right? At least the market mechanism wasn’t tampered with. That’s what America is all about!
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:31 AM
People who have rational arguments to make don’t have to rely on name-calling. YOUR world is the black-and-white one, dude. Those who don’t agree are “ignorant”.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:31 AM
I’m no fan of bailing out banks but I think we’d all agree that the financial system is not exactly the fast food industry. Burger King goes out of business and you eat at Wendy’s or the Micky D’s. The financial markets are the transactional clearing houses for the economy, period. Without the ability to price risk or assets the system comes to an abrupt stop. The bailout is actually based on terms which will likely result in the govt actually making some money in the long run. Think of it as a bridge loan.
Now the issue of bonuses. The financial service sector/Investment banking is incentive driven. A base salary is often only a small portion of total compensation. As a result, bonuses tend to be large and are required to keep talent and the business that they’ve developed. Nonetheless, the industry is very liquid with top earners moving from firm to firm based on compensation and taking their clients/business contacts with them.
The last thing a financial institution wants in a period like this is mass migration away from a firm. You loose your earners and their business. In other words you’re dead. So paying out $18 billion to keep talent and their business integrity in check is actually a pretty small price to pay. Keep in mind, the size of transactions and the size of the firms we’re taling about.
Why is Obama bent out of shape over $18 billion that actually stabilizes an industry and flows into the New York economy when by contrast he doesn’t blink to blow a TRILLION dollars on things that won’t stimulate the economy, won’t stabilize faultering industries and does nothing but practically gaurantee high inflation and more taxes.
moxie_neanderthal on January 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Because you didn’t help him. You waited for Barack to do it for you.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM
FO with your Obama references. Not everyone is obsessed with him like you are Jimmy. I DON’T SUPPORT HIM. There are other choices besides agreeing with you and Obama, you unbelievable moron.
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM
If we let Obama decide what happens to the private funds of individuals and corporations, nothing bad will happen to anyone ever again.
baldilocks on January 30, 2009 at 12:34 AM
You know what makes me laugh? You guys deserve the Kos and HuffPo and DU crowd. And they you. You complain so much about “BDS” and yet I come on here and try to have conversation about capitalism and poverty and every response is “Obama, Obama, Obama”. You gives a sh*t. Do you think about Obama while you make love to your wives?
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM
“Moron”. Come on. You can make a rational argument without that, right?
OK, so you don’t support Obama. But you do support far-reaching governmental intervention to do what you are not willing, even if able, to do yourself.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM
You=who
alex342 on January 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM
It’s not Obama personally. I find the guy pretty likable in some ways. It’s the mindset he represents.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Painfully similar to reduce your carbon footprint, don’t worry about me.
Pay your fair share, don’t worry about me.
Liberals always asking others to do more, but just don’t worry about me.
moxie_neanderthal on January 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Obama is the topic of this post.
Say what?
Proposition 8 passed in my state, but even so, I’m not inclined to have a wife, much less make love to her.
baldilocks on January 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
I’m not sure what you’re getting so angry about, but I would remind you that this thread is about Obama’s comments on Wall Street bonuses. So that’s, y’know, the topic of conversation. Not sure if you remembered that, since it’s all the way at the top of the screen.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Executive bonuses: take it up at the next stockholders meeting.
“Shameful”? Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. The likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, running American commerce. And Barack Obama talking out both sides of his mouth “Bi-partisanship” versus “I won”.
And nearly everyone in D.C. using the Constitution as toilet paper.
That’s shameful.
Amendment X on January 30, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Nahhhhh. I can criticize Obama without, for example, calling the paternity of his daughters into question.
ddrintn on January 30, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Only when I want to last for more than two hours. That usually does the trick.
Tuco on January 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I baited the green-eyed monster and now my day’s work is done here. May God get us all safely through the night and tomorrow bring us fewer pages of neener-neener.
Terrie on January 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Socialist logic. Noooooooo. It’s not only the government that could have stopped this travesty. If he didn’t have family or friends, how about neighbors (see the Hollywood types who’re just now, under Obama, pledging to help their neighbors). How about the church? This is a problem in the U.S., the disconnect among family member, the generations living hundreds of miles apart.
All this, however, is so off topic. We should have a bleeding heart thread. It’s what this time is all about.
Schadenfreude on January 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
JT can now celebrate the night with a good drink and a fine cigar. He won against two little men. Name calling and bleeding hearts is all they’ve got.
Schadenfreude on January 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM
…and we don’t gloat when a Dem like Teddy Kennedy gets cancer, we put him in our thoughts and/or prayers, just like with Robert Novak.
Laura in Maryland on January 30, 2009 at 12:44 AM
You realize the “bailout” is a loan right?
I guess you have no problem if you get a mortgage from the bank and then the bank can come into your house and yell at you because you had the audacity to use some of your salary to hire a gardner because you haven’t paid the house off first.
Skywise on January 30, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Well, I probably shouldn’t have called him “a bit dim.” Sorry about that, Alex. No hard feelings?
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Video: Wall Street bonuses this year “shameful,” says Obama
Read much?
WisCon on January 30, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Flirt!
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I’m adjusting my moral compass and want to get oriented correctly:
Bonuses=shameful
domestic terrorist buddy=not
preacher problems to the third power=not
“We Are “Air Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians”=not
okay got it
moxie_neanderthal on January 30, 2009 at 12:58 AM
But what if he is 6 months behind in his payments and he also just bought 25 pounds of wagyu steak?
Cheshire Cat on January 30, 2009 at 1:02 AM
I don’t like it either, but where was his family?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Are you only rude to women?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM
If you’re delinquent then the bank can foreclose and get their money back and come up with a payment plan. But they still don’t have a right to dictate how you spend the rest of your money.
Skywise on January 30, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Are you poverty stricken?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:22 AM
I’m actually kind of appalled at the reaction here by most people.
Honestly, it screams of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Guys, really…just step back for a moment and think, ok? I’m not a huge fan of Obama either, I know he’s not in the same camp as I am on a ton of issues. But this is getting a bit scary. He’s making a very legitimate point. Conservatism isn’t only about making money. We’re not just conservatives just because we want lower taxes and more money, are we? We also believe in our country as a whole. I’m not advocating a socialist philosophy either. We believe in sacrificing for our country and that’s pretty clear: Conservatives are most likely to serve in the armed forces and other branches of government for the defense and welfare of this nation – is that not so?
There is a very legitimate philosophical Conservative view that should agree with what Obama is saying in that clip. Being Conservatives isn’t only about money, it’s also about doing what is best for the country as a whole sometimes. We should honor that. If Obama comes out and states something like this at a very hard time like this, we should support it.
Where is the honor in those CEOs taking that kind of a bonus? It’s not doing the nation any good at a time when, frankly, we all should be trying to help the nation in the best way possible. How is that a view opposite of what we all believe as patriots?
I’m very disenchanted with many of these responses. Really, we should all do what we can to help the nation right now and I don’t see anything wrong with being pissed off at those who flagrantly reward themselves with, essentially, taxpayer money after they said that the entire system is about to crash if we don’t give it to them. Granted, it’s our fault for not giving them any strings attached to this, but it also goes against common sense – another cherished Conservative value.
Can we please stop with the hating on everything that Obama says? What he just said made sense to me and to most other Americans.
I know the blog name is Hot Air, but really…. =)
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Let’s see:
Bonuses = bad
$100 steak for Obama = not bad
737/747 party jets for Obama supporters = not bad
Rangel slush fund = not bad
Blago slush fund = not bad
Hmmm…
ThomasB. on January 30, 2009 at 1:24 AM
You know, you should consider taking that link out of your name, or at least putting up a disclaimer page letting us know the content is NSFW. There’s no way to tell just by the domain name.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM
I keep forgetting to do that and thanks for reminding me as I’m doing it now. =)
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Hey Summer…
The bonuses were industry wide. It just not the CEOs, it’s also the grunt work analyst with a couple of years of experience that get bonuses. So, in essence, this is a stimulus plan.
ThomasB. on January 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM
So, why doesn’t Obama do the right thing and let the businesses file for bankruptcy?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Done. =)
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Thanks.
Thanks also for the interesting content. ;)
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 1:32 AM
But what if it’s not really your money?
Cheshire Cat on January 30, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Remember in the 80′s when Iacocca took a one dollar salary? That was back when Reagan was President. That’s the kind of patriotism I’d like to see from the CEO’s. Fine – give people without millions of dollars in the industry a bonus to help the economy. Great. But guys who have hundreds of millions? I’m sorry…I just think that’s a bit crass. I’m definitely not a socialist, and neither was Iacocca. Taking a one dollar salary would be a show of patriotism for me.
It would be nice to see that.
I can’t say I disagree with that either. But the fact is that I agree with that statement and also agree that CEOs who took millions in bonuses right now are simply greedy scumbags. The two do not cancel each other out.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:34 AM
You realize that sounds dangerously close to what Biden described as “patriotism”.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Maybe so, but it isn’t. And if that was patriotic to do – the patriotic show to try to save our auto industry at the time – during the Reagan years, applauded by Reagan and Conservatives back then, I don’t see why anyone here should have a problem with it.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:36 AM
pussy
carbon_footprint on January 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM
So, would you work for one dollar a year?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Because the CEOs in charge of the auto companies and investment firms aren’t Lee Iacocca. They’re morons who either fly out to beg for money in private jets, or take the money they’re given and buy private jets. We also don’t have a supply-side conservative in the White House who will cripple the capital gains tax and actually give companies an incentive to try to pull back from the brink. We have Carter Reborn, and after he’s finished bailing out companies and they fail anyway, were going to settle into a period of stagnation, and with all the extra money being printed to fund these bailouts, we will then be looking at stagflation. Then the fun just gets better.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I don’t know about you, but if I had 50 or 100 million dollars in the bank I wouldn’t work at all.
MadisonConservative on January 30, 2009 at 1:41 AM
I have a problem with it being dictated by the government.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 1:43 AM
If I loan you money, it’s yours so long as you honor the contract for repaying the loan.
Skywise on January 30, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Of course, we can do like Mexico did and just move the decimal over a few places.
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:45 AM
If I had hundreds of millions of dollars and I was taking a job solely to help fix a serious problem that the nation has in dire economic times, and I really didn’t need another 20 million dollar bonus, sure I would. I would do it for many reasons, but foremost because it would be an opportunity to serve my country in some way and not profit from it for once. Reagan approved of Iacocca’s move, so why shouldn’t you? Are you saying that Iacocca and Reagan and Conservatives at the time were wrong to think this? Are you?
That’s my point: they’re morons. It’s time they stop being morons.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Would you feel the same if Reagan had ordered you to give up your salary?
One’s volunteerism, the other is subjugation.
Skywise on January 30, 2009 at 1:49 AM
And just how much confidence do you have that the CEO’s who ran their companies into the ground, then came with hat in hand for billions, got said billions and then paid themselves millions in bonuses, for what I don’t know, will pay back the billions?
Cheshire Cat on January 30, 2009 at 1:49 AM
There would be a greater chance of me giving away all my Guns and all my Gold to some church.
Tuco on January 30, 2009 at 1:52 AM
My first real job, I was paid sixty cents an hour. I have also worked for no pay. But, I don’t want someone who I don’t work for to determine my pay.
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:52 AM
If you have no faith in the CEOs to pay you back then why did you give them billions of dollars?
Skywise on January 30, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Who has ordered anyone?
Obama didn’t say anything about ordering or legislating or taking legal action, did he? I might have missed it though – he does tend to go on.
But again, that’s not the point I’m making. The point is that what Lee Iacocca did was patriotic. Reagan and Conservatives knew it was patriotic. It was a beautiful demonstration of Conservative values and patriotic ones, and it worked.
What the CEOs today did was unpatriotic and disgusting. I’m not saying they should even get rid of their salaries, just their bonuses perhaps? Maybe show people they’re not just the fucking greedy assholes that most Americans at this point believe them to be?
Or is your ODS so bad that you’ll even go against a die hard Reagan principle of patriotic self-sacrifice just to slight Obama? That would be really stupid, I think. But hey, it’s up to you. I think what Iacocca did was symbolic and should be applauded and, in fact, repeated by people who don’t actually need 20 million more dollars right now (or even way more than that). I think that Reagan would have been just as disgusted with what the CEOs did today and would have chided them about it, and would have mentioned something about patriotic duty. He might even have quoted Kennedy to them – which I hear a lot on this board.
Sounds to me like a lot of people here just will do anything to disagree with Obama, even if once in a while, like a broken clock, he might hit on something that is right. That’s just plain stupid.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 1:57 AM
It a conundrum.
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:57 AM
The Chrysler bailout was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on January 7, 1980, a full year before Reagan took office. Reagan and most conservatives opposed the Carter era bailout plan.
When Chrysler recovered and paid off the government loan ahead of schedule, Lee Iacocca asked Reagan to forego the profits and he refused, holding Chrysler to its end of the deal.
Terrie on January 30, 2009 at 1:58 AM
So, did you vote for Obama?
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 1:58 AM
I didn’t give them anything. Unlike our politicians, I’m not that stupid.
Cheshire Cat on January 30, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Yet.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 2:01 AM
More like a commode.
Cheshire Cat on January 30, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Don’t bother with this guy, Skywise.
baldilocks on January 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Nooooooo….
I just don’t think that he’s the devil incarnate. But no, I didn’t vote for him.
At least…I don’t think he is the devil incarnate…yet. He might be. I’ll have to see. I sure hope not though.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 2:04 AM
It’s not like he’s shown any socialist leanings so far. I’m sure we have nothing to worry about.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 2:07 AM
Well, the way you were defending him, with his socialist tendencies, I wasn’t sure.
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Presidents change in office. They become more moderate and…Conservative. The only exception I know of being Carter who was a total idiot and still is. =)
I have to say though, Obama’s dealing with the Muslim world does scare me and that was one of the major reasons why I didn’t vote for him. I happen to have loved Bush on this issue, and I always will. He screwed up real bad sometimes on the war, etc…but all in all he kept us safe and he was an overall amazing friend to Israel. That mattered to me and I think he should be respected for that.
Obama…still has to prove himself. It’s not looking great but until he actually does something, I’ll hold off.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong……
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 2:11 AM
I wasn’t defending socialist tendencies. I was defending patriotic ones. =)
There’s a difference. I don’t want people to mandate anything about bonuses. I just want some people who have tons of money to have some darn common sense, you know?
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 2:11 AM
Yeah, so far so good.
Jim Treacher on January 30, 2009 at 2:11 AM
And LBJ, and FDR.
Johan Klaus on January 30, 2009 at 2:13 AM
Actually, it’s way better than it could have been.
We all thought he was a tool for Moveon and ANSWER. Well, so far, he isn’t. He may be closing Guantanamo….in a year. That’s some real huge instant decision, isn’t it? Or is it? And are we pulling out of Iraq since 10 days? The Left would have wanted that, but did he? Nope, didn’t think so.
So no, he’s not the Leftist dream machine yet. Maybe he will be, but he hasn’t been yet.
Summer on January 30, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »