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 March 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, tarpon said:

   With Obama blink or will he veto … Trap ahead.

2. #2
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, bradley said:

   Feinstein knows all about “appropriations” of other people’s money. When she was mayor of San Francisco she gave away the store, which prior to her BEING mayor had a surplus. The day after she left office and was replaced by a new mayor (Art Agnos), Agnos said the city comptroller came in and said the city was broke. She’d given all the money away. It caused bond ratings to collapse and the city had to pay tons more in interest for loans, etc. She is nothing more than another tax-and-spend (other people’s money) liberal. Of course, it’s not HER money. It never is.

3. #3
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm, California Red said:

   I can only hope that this will be his “Read My Lips” statement and Obama’s empty promise to clean up earmarks will result in a 1 term presidency.

4. #4
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, letget said:

   Just keep paying taxes, paying taxes, paying taxes to pay for this. I hope I live long enough to see this come to an end.
   L

5. #5
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm, rambler said:

   Wow! Why would dear Diane be in Congress if not to rob the tax money from other states and funnel it to Ca. After all, Ca needs more.
   Here in NJ, Menendez is more concerned with helping Cuba than helping save taxpayer money. We need to hear more from members of Congress defending this pork. Expose it all so it will be less likely for the voters to return these clowns to Congress to spend any more of our money.

6. #6
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm, robhic said:

   It constantly mystifies me how we (US citizens) can find such pathetic candidates to fill elected positions.

   And equally mystifying is how, when they show their true colors, they keep getting re-elected year after year after year, ad nauseum.

   Is is willful ignorance? Plain stupidity? Laziness? If you can vote the clown in in the first place, why such a problem to vote ‘em out again?

7. #7
   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm, dadinseattle said:

   “Yes, I fight for funds for taxpayers money to control my state. That’s what I came here to do,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which doles out the earmarks. “Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can’t help your state steal all you can?”

   Funds = our money,
   bringing home other peoples money is not an honest living!

   You were sent there to work for all the people, represent your state and work to solve issues- not to work on re-election favors!

8. #8
   On March 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm, txvet2 said:

   On March 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, letget said:

   Just keep paying taxes, paying taxes, paying taxes to pay for this. I hope I live long enough to see this come to an end.

   You won’t. If you have anything left when you die, they’ll tax that too. They don’t miss a trick.

9. #9
   On March 9th, 2009 at 8:12 pm, bruins90210 said:

   This reminds me of the shirts I saw this on twitter about an hour ago. Check out the “Community Cheat” shirts. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Either way, I think I’ll have to buy at least a few of them.

   http://site.despair.com/kleptocracy/

10. #10
    On March 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    A period of economic crisis is no time to put a stop to earmarks!!!

    No wait…it’s probably the BEST time to get fiscally responsible!!!

11. #11
    On March 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, prendad said:

    I SHALL CALL UPON MY UNBELIEVABLY FANTASTIC MENTAL POWERS, EVEN GREATER THAN THE GREAT CARNAC HIMSELF, AND PREDICT WITH UNCHALLENGED ACCURACY THAT:

    Obama will sign this bill faster than Nancy Pelosi can blink.

    STAY TUNED FOR MORE UNBELIEVABLY FANTASTIC AND JAW-DROPPING MENTAL PREDICTIONS COMING SOON!

12. #12
    On March 9th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Of course, it’s not HER money. It never is.

    Well technically, some of it ends up her money after making sure hubby gets a $600 million Army contract for example.

    She might as well have said, ““Yes, I fight for funds for my state family. That’s what I came here to do,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which doles out the earmarks. “Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can’t help your state family?”

13. #13
    On March 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Here is how Obama plans to unleash Acorn and LaRaza on us in exchange for that $5 billion porkulus gift:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.1da91b565bedacc6461ea17550408182.661&show_article=1

    Looks like we are about to be paid a visit by his “domestic Peace Corps”. Or maybe I should say, by “the people’s” Red Guard neighborhood commissar?

14. #14
    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm, Khyris said:

    Obama will sign this bill faster than Nancy Pelosi can blink.

    That’s a sucker’s bet. She lost the ability to blink years ago… Hint, she’s not really “surprised” all the time…. it’s just the botox.

15. #15
    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:23 pm, Khyris said:

    Even if she could, she already used up her quota of blinks for the decade at that State of the Union address

16. #16
    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pm, zyzzyg said:

    What really bothers me are the Republicans who have pork in the bill that will vote against the entire bill.

    Pull your pork and vote nay. Leave your pork in and vote yea. But don’t leave your pork in, and vote nay.

    Can’t wait to see who the hypocites are.

17. #17
    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    And there’s McCain again, gratuitously running up his conservative rating in a losing cause. Why do I feel that had the vote been close, he would have formed a gang to deliver exactly enough votes to the Dems? Where do I get such ideas?

    It’s all just one big kabuki play in pretending we have a two-party system.

18. #18
    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm, havok said:

    Considering CA is bankrupt she would want to steal everyone else’s money where and when possible.

19. #19
    On March 10th, 2009 at 1:27 am, RetFireman said:

    By a 63-32 vote, lawmakers rejected a bid by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to effectively strip about 8,000 of those earmarks from the $410 billion measure.

    Earmarks? What earmarks? Didn’t McCain get the memo that stated there were no earmarks and that Der Fuhrer, with all his worldly knowledge, stated he is against earmaks? Where is McCain getting this number of 8000 earmarks from?

    I guess Der Fuhrer missed them. Maybe someone should get him a nice cup of warm milk and tuck him into bed. He is obviously just over-tired from all that hard work he is putting in and missed it.

    Poor little fella.

20. #20
    On March 10th, 2009 at 1:58 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    I don’t understand. lgm said that there were no earmarks in this bill.

21. #21
    On March 10th, 2009 at 2:01 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    On March 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pm, zyzzyg said:

    What really bothers me are the Republicans who have pork in the bill that will vote against the entire bill.

    Pull your pork and vote nay. Leave your pork in and vote yea. But don’t leave your pork in, and vote nay.

    Can’t wait to see who the hypocites are

    No argument from me. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, and if not, they sure are trying…

22. #22
    On March 10th, 2009 at 8:26 am, orlandocajun said:

    “Socialism fails when the government runs out of other people’s money”. The people of this country continue to send the same thieves to Washington. We have the government we deserve. I pray for my kids and their kids.

23. #23
    On March 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am, cheapseat said:

    #22 exactly right. this is why i pay 11k per year for a huge insurance policy. it’s one benefit i can leave to my grandson.

24. #24
    On March 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am, lgm said:

    Pork is about 1% of the budget. Cleaning it all out would barely change the bottom line. The heaviest anti-pork Republicans defend their share tooth and nail hoof and snout.

    To summarize: the Republican anti-pork movement is like most Republican politics — Bull.

25. #25
    On March 10th, 2009 at 9:58 am, chapoutier said:

    #22 exactly right. this is why i pay 11k per year for a huge insurance policy. it’s one benefit i can leave to my grandson.

    You can up that to $13,000 a year. $26,000 if you are married.

26. #26
    On March 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am, chapoutier said:

    Pork is about 1% of the budget. Cleaning it all out would barely change the bottom line.

    True, lgm. But to be totally fair you should recognize that Pelosi and Reid absolutely rebuffed Obama when he said he wanted to go after the real budget drivers: entitlement spending. I do not think they are effective leaders.

27. #27
    On March 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am, happy2behere said:

    APPROPRIATOR is an appropriate word.

28. #28
    On March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 am, lottadawg said:

    I wish I had the writing skills of some in this blog. To be verbose at a high level is a talent I do so appreciate. I will take a stab at it.
    Every day I wake up and either the President or Congress has done something that always amounts to kicking the crap out of my country and assailing my culture. Washing D.C. is so wrapped up in its own importance it doesn’t see anything else. It looks like daily systematic bleeding that will end in bankrupting , or giving away the country.
    Mr. President, Congress. You pretty well suck!

29. #29
    On March 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am, cabrerski said:

    On March 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am, lgm said:
    Pork is about 1% of the budget.

    Even if your numbers are correct, it still demonstrates the way Washington (both Dems and Reps) treat the rest of the country in budgetary matters.

    The definition of pork is also subject to the interpetation of the beholder (note how Pelosi “swore” to Blitzer there was no pork in the stimulus package).

    Many of these politicians hide pet projects in larger budgets or they refuse to cut waste in budget proposals (which is a much greater dollar amount).

    That being said, the biggest crime by those in D.C. is constantly harping about deficit spending and never once mentioning the debt. Servicing our debt is the second largest expenditure in our budget. If we keep borrowing (or printing money) at the current rate, debt servicing will surpass Social Security.

30. #30
    On March 10th, 2009 at 11:13 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    On March 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am, lgm said:

    Pork is about 1% of the budget. Cleaning it all out would barely change the bottom line. The heaviest anti-pork Republicans defend their share tooth and nail hoof and snout.

    To summarize: the Republican anti-pork movement is like most Republican politics — Bull.

    Wow! We finally agree on something!

31. #31
    On March 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    On March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 am, lottadawg said:

    Well said!

32. #32
    On March 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am, cabrerski said:

    Do you really want to have nightmares?

    Read this with the understanding of who authored the report:

    http://www.gao.gov/financial/citizensguide2008.pdf

    Please check out chart 2 on page 3. I will lie awake for many nights over this.

33. #33
    On March 11th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, bobtundra said:

    That picture is giving me nightmares.