The "Czar" Debate settled once and for all.

[garyd]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

 

[WillowTree]

Not it's not. There is a huge difference between the two.

advisor: one who gives advice.

czar: any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field


So, what does Obama have? What did Bush have? How do we know what they are doing - - - - advising or exercising great authority/power? If they're not confirmed, where are the checks and balances? How do we know they don't have more power than we believe?

So you agree that it was outrageous how many Bush had right? By the way, just curious, did you know that he had this many before this thread?

You missed my first post. Yes I agree with you that it was outrageous that Bush had so many czars. No, I had no idea czars even existed before Obama. Was I living in a cave? Perhaps, as I was raising a special needs child and trying to keep the holes in the walls to a minimum and literally making sure he didn't burn down the house.

I don't think there should be any czars, period. If a job needs to be filled, confirm the person, vet them and make sure there are checks and balances in place.

I'm still not sure if czars or advisers are constitutional.

President Bush had four czars.. That's four too many.

 

[DiveCon]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

well hell, now they are calling cabinet positions "czars"
never before had i ever heard that

 

[DiveCon]

So you agree that it was outrageous how many Bush had right? By the way, just curious, did you know that he had this many before this thread?

You missed my first post. Yes I agree with you that it was outrageous that Bush had so many czars. No, I had no idea czars even existed before Obama. Was I living in a cave? Perhaps, as I was raising a special needs child and trying to keep the holes in the walls to a minimum and literally making sure he didn't burn down the house.

I don't think there should be any czars, period. If a job needs to be filled, confirm the person, vet them and make sure there are checks and balances in place.

I'm still not sure if czars or advisers are constitutional.

President Bush had four czars.. That's four too many.

i agree

 

[veritas]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

er.......no, it's more of a multi-tasking working title. Some people are smarter than you are and have more than one area of expertise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah, but Obama is on track to have 400% more than Bush. Thats like saying yeah, a Bentley is expensive at $300,000, but so is a Cadillac (at $75,000).

They're not in the same league. Hell, they're not even in the same ballpark, stadium or state.

That's true, however one has to consider the certain Republican mood toward the Czars. Now, if that's the way they were acting when Obama is doing it, then shouldn't be acting the same way when Bush was doing it? Of course they aren't.

The issue here is not the word... Czar; the issue is the application of the Czar.

Bush didn't use Czars as King Hussein is using them; to bypass the US Constitution...

And your demanding that 'A Czar is a Czar, is a Czar' isn't going to make the applications equivilent...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't remember people complaining about czars before Obama took office.

Well ya haven't known me long enough... I've always detested the term and the Progressives that use 'em.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Most of the Czars are already confirmed, Polk had a few good posts on that. I didn't bitch when Bush had Czars. WTF cares? Beck drones do. That's about it.

I didn't bitch about them either.

Well that serves reason... The Term is one which appeals to Nanny Statists... Probably a subconscious thing...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not it's not. There is a huge difference between the two.

advisor: one who gives advice.

czar: any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field


So, what does Obama have? What did Bush have? How do we know what they are doing - - - - advising or exercising great authority/power? If they're not confirmed, where are the checks and balances? How do we know they don't have more power than we believe?

So you agree that it was outrageous how many Bush had right? By the way, just curious, did you know that he had this many before this thread?

I don't care how many Czars/Advisors a president has. I care if he surrounds himself with far left/right radicals.

Point of order... It is an ideological impossibility for a "Rightist" to be a Radical...

Rightist are advocates of the natural order... That's hardly the making of the Radical.

"He's RADICAL in his advocacy of intellectually sound, logically valid reasoning..."

See how that just lays there? Now he may be emphatic in his advocacy... but there's nothing radical about the truth. It just is...

 

[Article 15]

Most of the Czars are already confirmed, Polk had a few good posts on that. I didn't bitch when Bush had Czars. WTF cares? Beck drones do. That's about it.

I didn't bitch about them either.

Well that serves reason... The Term is one which appeals to Nanny Statists... Probably a subconscious thing...

More like a not being a paranoid wing nut thing but if it makes you feel better to say otherwise, whatever keeps you off the clock towers ...

 

[Polk]

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine

Just because other Presidents have had Czars doesn't mean it's right or constitutional.

Many of the "czars" are people working in the Executive Office of the President. Is the existence of the EOP unconstitutional?

 

[Polk]

There should be no czars at all, by any president. They are not confirmed, they answer to no one but the president, there are no checks and balances. It's too easy for too few to have too much power.

If Obama were 'the president of change' he claims to be, why doesn't he change this and vet/confirm these people?

Actually, a fair chuck of the people being called "czars" are in positions subject to Senate confirmation.

 

[Polk]

Maybe the recent edits because of Obama's Czars? Ever think of that?

I bet you just don't want to admit that he had more Czars. Look at this! You fucking hypocrite that you are. What if Bush does have more Czars though? Where's your outrage Dive, c'mon, show us all like you do with Obama.

fuck off punk
i still dont like czars
and if you looked in that graph, some of the posititions they are calling "Bush Czars" was a position CREATED BY CONGRESS
which is the way positions should be created
that is not the same thing

don't annoy him with facts Dive.

What facts? The list of Obama's "czars" are loaded with undersecretaries in agencies created by the Congress.

 

[Polk]

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

The list of Obama's "czars" list him as a czar also, along with the head of the office for science policy and tons of other long-existing departments.

 

[Polk]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

Herb Allison, who is called the "TARP Czar" by the list, is actually the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability and was confirmed by the Senate on June 19th. The position in question was created during the Bush administration and was originally filled by Neel Kashkari.

Dennis Blair, who is referred to as the "Intelligence Czar" is actually the Director of National Intelligence. A position created by the Bush administration, Blair was confirmed by the Senate on January 28th.

Gil Kerlikowske, the "Drug Czar" heads of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. A position first created during the Reagan administration, he was confirmed by the Senate on May 7th.

Ashton Carter, the "Weapons Czar", is actually Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics at the Defense Department. He was confirmed by the Senate on April 23th.

Jeffrey Zients, the "Government Performance Czar", was confirmed by the Senate on June 19th.

David Hayes, the "California Water Czar", is actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. He was confirmed on May 20th.

Aneesh Chopra, the "Technology Czar", is the Chief Technology Officer and was confirmed by the Senate on May 21st.

John Holdren, the "Science Czar", heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which was created during by Ford in 1976. He was confirmed on March 19th.

 

[Polk]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

well hell, now they are calling cabinet positions "czars"
never before had i ever heard that

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

 

[DiveCon]

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

The list of Obama's "czars" list him as a czar also, along with the head of the office for science policy and tons of other long-existing departments.

i know
and that's fucked up

 

[DiveCon]

Polk was full of shit. None of the Czars were appointed and went through congressional approval that was the whole point of having them so they could avoid having to get congressional approval and the requisite investigation into thier back ground.

well hell, now they are calling cabinet positions "czars"
never before had i ever heard that

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

no, it isn't
if thats what they are calling his czars then i'm not with them
positions confirmed by the senate have accountability and thus dont fit the meaning of a czar

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine

Just because other Presidents have had Czars doesn't mean it's right or constitutional.

Many of the "czars" are people working in the Executive Office of the President. Is the existence of the EOP unconstitutional?

The Czars aren't confirmed by the Senate, and are therefore unconstitutional.

 

[Polk]

well hell, now they are calling cabinet positions "czars"
never before had i ever heard that

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

no, it isn't
if thats what they are calling his czars then i'm not with them
positions confirmed by the senate have accountability and thus dont fit the meaning of a czar

The others are posts inside the Executive Office of the President. Should the president have the ability to select personal advisers?