See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am, CyberCipher said:

   Well, DUH.

2. #2
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am, b-cat said:

   The problem is not the bonuses. Those are contractual obligations anyway. Contract law is still law, isn’t it?

   The problem is the bailouts. Unneeded and unwanted. Capitalism allows for success and failure. Upon failure, success is built.

3. #3
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am, jimpenny said:

   There are none so blind as those who will not see.

4. #4
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am, hunter said:

   …that taxpayers have had to shell out nearly a trillion dollars in emergency bailout funds

   Taxpayers did not have to shell out anything, we were forced to by limp wristed worthless little congresspeople with no morales.

5. #5
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am, CyberCipher said:

   Why is it that all those people in the electorate out there think that the government can save us, when it is CLEAR that they can’t even enforce the existing laws that are already on the books?

   My collie says:

   Why turn all power, authority, and resources over to a group of people that have a long and abiding record of incompetence and failure?

   It has become the hallmark of celebrity in this country, viz. screw up REALLY, REALLY big in a PUBLIC way, and you’ll never ever have to work again in your life — you just write a book, go on the talk show circuit, and you’re set for life.

6. #6
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am, jangar said:

   The sock puppet has his own puppet. Somebody out there should come up with a photoshop of the DNC puppets with puppets (with puppets, etc.)!

7. #7
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am, Durangodarlin said:

   And what about the pay raise that you gave yourselves at the beginning of this year, Senator Claire? I think you need to give that back.

   Will someone please check the water in DC?

8. #8
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am, flmom said:

   Claire, do the names Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick inspire the same outrage in you? If not, why not?

9. #9
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am, txvet2 said:

   en. Claire McCaskill’s righteous verdict on shameless, clueless, bonus-grubbing executives should be carved on the tombstone of the whole “Masters of the Universe” ethos that brought us to this moment of dire economic peril: “These people are idiots.”

   After which, she wondered, ‘How can those people give themselves pay raises? Who do they think they are – Congress?’ If anybody can identify an idiot, she can. Takes one, as they say.

10. #10
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am, Socky said:

    This is the classy dame who spit on her earpiece before handing it to Mitt Romney.

11. #11
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am, txvet2 said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am, Durangodarlin said:

    Beat me. Great minds, as they say, think alike.

12. #12
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am, kthomas8268 said:

    What a bunch of hypocrites! I don’t care what any of these bozos in Washington say anymore! I’m through with the lot of them. Next primary I’m voting for WHOEVER is running AGAINST who’s in office now.

    They ALL ARE a bunch of tax cheating, liars, pay to play, bankrupting IDIOTS!

13. #13
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am, Socky said:

    In a nutshell, here’s how Congress screwed up the banking system:

    Left to its own devices, private enterprise would loan money to individuals most likely to repay it, at interest rates commensurate with the amount of risk involved in the loan.

    But government didn’t care for that system, and substituted one in which the criteria for loans was not based on ability to repay, but on a political calculus that favored groups identified as potential sources of political support. Many of these borrowers would not have gotten loans under the previous regime, for the very good reason that they were bad risks.

    Nature and economics do not long tolerate fools. Of course the loans went bad. And the consequences have been severe.

    This is typical of what happens when economic decisions are politicized.

14. #14
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am, jangar said:

    Democrats will never listen folks. They are too busy orchestrating the Great American Fiscal & Social Assalt of 2009.

15. #15
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 am, rooster said:

    What are the strings attached to the billions of $$’s going to ACORN?

16. #16
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am, RedDog said:

    Who’s the idiot, Sen. McCaskill?

    Keep in mind Sen. McCaskill’s comrades in Congress were the criminal agents who ACTUALLY precipitated the crisis that created the need for the bailout bucks in the first place. And she’s calling Wall Street names? I’m surprised this dim bulb can even find her way to her Senate office each morning. I’m sure she has no problem cashing her paychecks.

17. #17
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am, jangar said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 am, rooster said:
    What are the strings attached to the billions of $$’s going to ACORN?

    Boost the Obama 2012 re-election numbers to 60%.

18. #18
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am, walterc said:

    Well now that it’s done, I tend to agree with her. any company taking money from the taxpayers should use a little fiscal repsonsabilitiy. But since congress gave Paulson carte blanche over the funds with no oversight or restrictions (since the sky was falling and all), what did they expect? The time of putting restrictions on the crap sandwich of last fall was last fall.

19. #19
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 am, Craig said:

    McCaskill and Robinson…now there’s a duo for the ages.

20. #20
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am, governmentdrone said:

    #1: The bail-out was a bad idea. Period.

    #2: The bail-out is now a reality. Period.

    #3: The (supposed) idea of the bail-out is to “turn the companies around” and make sound businesses of them again.

    #4: The best way to do this is to limit the amount of compensation that will be available to people to come in and get the job done?

    #5 Limiting the amount of compensation available will really draw the best possible people to these jobs to get the companies turned around?

    #6: Who is kidding who here?

21. #21
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am, FamilyMan said:

    b-cat said:
    The problem is not the bonuses. Those are contractual obligations anyway. Contract law is still law, isn’t it?

    YES

22. #22
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am, pablo said:

    Who is at fault? How about all of those who supported the bail-out without looking fully into what the cause was and where the money would go. I fault a clueless W and a befuddled John McCain. I support Sen. Claire McCaskill’s current position and remember vividly her voting against comprehensive immigration reform that was championed by W and McCain.

23. #23
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 am, DBNinKY said:

    And now, Sen. McCaskill, it dawns on you that failing to attach strings to the money was a bad idea.

    Oh it dawned her, she just couldn’t stop making shrill negative attacks on President Bush and the GOP long enough to do anything about it. McCaskill is one of if not the most partisan, narrow minded female to grace the political scene in quite some time and as such, is ruining her own credibility.

24. #24
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am, JohnnyD said:

    Sen. Claire McCaskill’s righteous SMUG verdict on shameless, clueless, bonus TAX-grubbing executives POLITICIANS should be carved on the tombstone of the whole “Masters of the Universe” ethos that brought us to this moment of dire economic peril: “These people THE VOTERS are idiots.”

    There, fixed it for you Eugene!

25. #25
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am, battleaxe said:

    These Wall Street firms are just taking their cues from our fearful leader. Obama’s mega-inauguration, presidential steak parties, and begging congress to give out public money to his political cronies are just showing Wall Street how to spend the public trust.

26. #26
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am, rplatt said:

    Worms like McCaskill are so incredibly stupid. Left to their own resources they will completely destroy the Republic.

27. #27
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am, Truesoldier said:

    I just sent the following quotes from this post to my Congressman, who back when all this bailout crap started tried (lamely) to convince me that they had all sorts of strings attached as a safety net…

    McCaskill introduced a bill to limit compensation at any company receiving bailout money to $400,000 — the salary of the president of the United States. It’s hard to improve on her words: “We should have done it in the first place. But I don’t think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don’t think any of us believed that they would take billions of dollars in bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out. But they did. And we’ve learned our lesson.”

    I would love to see his response, but I am not holding my breath.

    Hey I just heard that Nancy Killfer (spelling) who Obama nominated as his performance czar has just withdrawn her nomination due to…yep you guessed it tax problems.

28. #28
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am, FamilyMan said:

    What these overindulged CEO’s and politicians don’t see , is that they’re both “cut from the same cloth”. Both abuse their power and are reworded for it. We all know how difficult it is to remove a bad public servant and also how nearly impossible it is to kick out a self serving CEO.
    They both need to screw up big time before we’re aware of their behavior.

29. #29
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am, zyzzyg said:

    Who’s the idiot, Sen. McCaskill?

    They are all idiots. Beginning with Pres Bush’s Treas Sec, Paulson. When he first addressed this issue his proposed fix was a one page bill.

    Our only hope is that there have been lessons learned, and that the mistakes from the past will not be repeated should the “Stimulus Bill” become law.

    For the record, if there has to be a “Stimulus Bill”, please no pork and no silliness.

30. #30
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 am, mchristian said:

    Anyone who has had or been a teenager knows that you set the conditions before you hand out the money. If you don’t, you have no right to complain about how it is spent. Congress wants to be the nanny? Let them learn how to discipline their charges.

31. #31
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am, MarcoPolo said:

    Earth to Wall Street: It’s over, people. You had a terrific run, better than you deserved, but now you’d be wise to pay attention to those citizens outside, the ones with the pitchforks and the torches.

    I’ve got a pitchfork, and a Coleman lantern. But the mob I would join would be headed to Washington, not Wall Street.

32. #32
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am, cheapseat said:

    mm, i think claire mccaskill actually voted against the bailout, as i remember being shocked by it. i could be remembering something else, but i think it was the crap sandwich 1.0. but as her husband makes his huge piles of dough building section 8 housing and nursing homes for the medicare/medicaid group, her snout is deeeeep in the gubmint trough.

33. #33
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am, iamsaved said:

    I would have thought old Claire McCaskill would have been given a plum job in the Obama Administration since she was fawning over him from the very beginning.

    Of course, Congress had no part in this debacle. I mean Chris Dodd and Barney Frank’s hands are as clean as an ivory soap commercial.

34. #34
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm, doppelganglander said:

    That headline is punctuated incorrectly. It should be: “Who’s the idiot? Claire McCaskill!”

35. #35
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm, laggarticus said:

    Kit Bond, my other senator, earned his way on to the hot seat in my book the other day with his “He’s a good listener” crack about why he vote for Holder, but McCaskill has been on my list of most detestable politicians I have the ability to vote for since her failed bid for Missouri Governor back in ’04 with her incredibly misleading ads. When she beat out Jim Talent in ’06 for the Senate, I couldn’t stand her snide, smug attitude (and besides, Jim Talent was a great guy). When I started paying very close attention to my senators, their stances, and their voting habits, I sent in a letter to McCaskill and Bond about my rather grave concerns over the Law Of the Sea Treaty (search Michelle’s site for LOST if you don’t remember what it is). McCaskill’s office sent me back the most condescending letter I have ever recieved in my life. I’ll be volunteering my time in 2012 to campaign against this megalomaniacal idiot! She should be less concerned about the Wall Street crowd’s pitchfork-and-torch carrying mob and start paying attention to the one she’s accumulating.

36. #36
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm, John Deaux said:

    Despite the fact that unemployment, inflation, and economic growth are still not worse than the depression, the Dems and their MSM cohorts are going to continue to beat the bad economy drum until after the 2010 elections. Then the economy will recover as all economic downturns do and BO will take credit as the great savior that they make him out to be.

    If we recover now, people will forget by 2012.

37. #37
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm, Andy said:

    Don’t forget, Paulson & Bernake were Dems hired by W as a bi-partisan gesture to the Donks

38. #38
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm, JustAThought said:

    “Momma says ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’”

39. #39
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm, Ron said:

    The Donkey is looking more and more like an old fashioned Ass.

40. #40
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm, corona said:

    Answer: the American voter

41. #41
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm, tpitman said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am, CyberCipher said:

    Why is it that all those people in the electorate out there think that the government can save us, when it is CLEAR that they can’t even enforce the existing laws that are already on the books?

    . . . much less obey them, especially around April 15th.

42. #42
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 am, mchristian said:

    Anyone who has had or been a teenager knows that you set the conditions before you hand out the money.

    Yep, learned this lesson again – just this weekend. I gave my teenage daughter a $20 to go to the movies with a couple of her friends. I expected her to buy a movie ticket, some junk food at the theatre and that I would get a pittance of change back.

    Instead, when I picked her up a few hours later, I was met with a ::groan:: “OMG my stomach hurts so bad, we ate too much candy, cookies and junk food….”

    Hmmm, I received no change back at all. But should I be happy that in lieu of buying high-cost junk at the theatre, that they instead maximized their unit cost ROI in the mall afterwards?

    Maybe if the government would just bat their eyes and give me a ‘But I love you, Daddy’ that I would go along with this stimulus/bailout BS without any argument.

43. #43
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm, rightisright said:

    I’m through with the lot of them. Next primary I’m voting for WHOEVER is running AGAINST who’s in office now.

    Sounds good but what if the party doesn’t put up or have anyone willing to run against the incumbent. Happened to me last Nov. in a senatorial race here. No competition in the primary of course, I did not vote for the “reacher”, he lost to a solid dem, at least I don’t feel like I’m stabbed in the back every time they vote.

44. #44
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm, BKennedy said:

    McHackShill?

    No thanks. I’ll pass.

45. #45
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    McHackShill is obligated to make stupid statements and lie about it-Party rules and all that.

    I like it BKennedy.

46. #46
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm, Freddy said:

    The bonuses are actually no surprise to me at all. Remember, this is a government project and the government is loaded with foolish beurocrats that are incapable of implementing much of anything properly.

    The redirection of major amounts of cash after a merger is agreed to and before it is completed is ALWAYS covered by the merger contracts themselves. The foolish people in congress are not even capable of managing simple boiler plate corporate merger documents.

    This episode is just a tiny taste of the absurd waste that the government produces on a daily basis. The wastefull spending is just starting!

47. #47
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm, Papa Louie said:

    b-cat said:

    The problem is not the bonuses. Those are contractual obligations anyway. Contract law is still law, isn’t it?

    I haven’t seen any evidence that these bonuses were contractual obligations. Do you have any proof?

    Merrill Lynch reported that they reduced bonuses to 2004 levels. Are they being sued by employees for paying reduced bonuses and violating contractual obligations? If not, then the amount was not contractual. They could have paid each employee a one dollar bonus and still met their contractual obligation if there even was one.

    The fact is, they would not have had the money to pay these bonuses if not for the bailout. If our representatives were going to do a bailout at all, they should have put strings on the money. If Wall Street didn’t like the strings, they could pass on the bailout money. It wouldn’t have hurt my feelings at all.

48. #48
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:15 am, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am, b-cat said:

    The problem is not the bonuses. Those are contractual obligations anyway. Contract law is still law, isn’t it?

    Uh, depends. Employment contracts may still be valid but it’s looking like mortgage contracts are so last year.

49. #49
    On February 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am, torabora said:

    bcat/familyman….contract law is NOT controlled by the ex post facto clause (ruled by SCOTUS …despite what it says in the Constitution) EPF applies only to criminal law.

    So a law can be passed to trump contracts.

    Best I can tell, this came about because the prohibition against EPF and Bills of Attainder are attached in a sentence. Since Attainder is clearly directed towards criminal matters the idiots on the court cleverly construed EPF to apply only to the same.

    Tortured reasoning that belies the clear meaning of the words…

    So now REGULATORS, e.g. the gubberment, can run amok throughout the fruited plain preying on the citizery.

    We got sold out long time ago. duh1 is a symptom, not a proximate cause.

    Third party now please!

50. #50
    On February 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, gailygirl said:

    I heard Senator McCaskill on the radio with her little speech. What a crock. She ran for Governor of the Sate of Missouri 4 yrs ago and didn’t make it. Then made the run for the Senate. She is just like the rest of the Dems in the Senate a crook.

51. #51
    On February 5th, 2009 at 2:17 am, Speakup said:

    You people listened to Naked Emperor Hank Paulson despite his abysmal track record. You flapped and clucked in Chicken Little lock-step and rushed headlong to fork over billions to bail out his and his friends failing companies.

52. #52
    On February 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am, kthomas8268 said:
    What a bunch of hypocrites! I don’t care what any of these bozos in Washington say anymore! I’m through with the lot of them. Next primary I’m voting for WHOEVER is running AGAINST who’s in office now.

    They ALL ARE a bunch of tax cheating, liars, pay to play, bankrupting IDIOTS!

    My guys, and gal, are from Oklahoma, and all but one of them (Dan Boren – D – 2nd Dist. – OK) voted against the porkulus bill. Of course, Oklahoma was the only state where Da One lost in every single county.

    The resistance is here. The resistance is now. RESIST!!!

    ECS

53. #53
    On December 3rd, 2010 at 2:28 pm, collinb said:

    If Claire McCaskill has called for violence in the streets then Claire McCaskill should be called out for treason. This is a call for insurrection.
    Such speech should not be taken lightly.
    Call her on it!