Paul Begala

I just want to see the other side get in the game a little bit and some sensible regulation on Wall Street.

I think they're also anti-Wall Street, Alex.

I wasn't for it. I'm not going to try to like flack for Barack Obama.

I would carry a sign that says, you know, toughen up and regulate Wall Street and throw the -- throw the crooks in jail on Wall Street, something Democrats are for and Republicans are against.

If it's good enough for Warren Buffett, my goodness, is he a class warrior, too, now? He's the second richest man in the world.

I think you're right. I don't like the idea, if it's true, of some liberals going there and saying even more crazy and extreme things.

As Warren Buffett said, we already have class warfare in this country, and my class is winning.

I think my party ought to get in the game, too, and get some of those guys and gals, because I think they're just as upset with Wall Street, and they ought to be, as they are with Washington.

Who is carrying Wall Street's water? That's the question. Who benefits?

This is not a bailout, Mitch. I'm sorry, but it's just -- it's -- that's the only way to deal with this kind of thing is -- is with ridicule, because he's insulting our intelligence.

We already have a class warfare as Warren Buffet said, we already have class warfare in this country and my class is winning.

I think my party ought to get in the game too and get some of those guys and gals. Because I think they're just as upset with Wall Street, and they ought to be as they are with Washington.

None of those Tea Party activists like the idea of a Republican Party carrying water for Wall Street.

Who benefits well, when Wall Street gives you a million bucks and you're killing the bill that Wall Street wants killed, you know, I think maybe there's a connection.

When he says he's the bailout he's just flat out lying; maybe I should put that on my forehead. This is not a bailout, Mitch.

Mitch McConnell says that this bill to regulate Wall Street is somehow a Wall Street bailout even though the plain language of the bill says it's not.

They are the agreed-upon arbiter here. And they're totally nonpartisan.

But if you care about the deficit -- I know Reihan does and a lot of our viewers do -- it is simply a fact that this is the largest deficit-reduction package in a decade.

It costs a fortune, $200 billion. It is not in this bill. I do hope, when Congress takes it up, they pay for it. But that's a big debate.

I think that the point that Reihan makes about this so-called doc fix, where doctors are going to be under-reimbursed under Medicare if they don't fix it, is absolutely right.

I think they understand... that this is not on the level.

If even one amendment sneaks through, then the House would have to take up the changed reconciliation bill.

I think the point that Reihan makes about this so-called doc fix, where doctors are going to be under-reimbursed under Medicare if they don't fix it, is absolutely right.

If Senator Coburn really wanted to stop sex offenders from getting Viagra, he would have put that amendment up when the big bill was being negotiated.

It is simply a fact that this is the largest deficit reduction package in a decade.