What the hell is it with Obama and all these Czars? Auto Czar, FCC Diversity Czar, etc... Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid. Last I heard this was still America not some communist country. I figured Obama was going to do some crazy @!#$ but damn. Whats next a Bathroom Czar too make sure people aren't plugging toilets.
Whats new? It is long past time these czars were gone. We did not elect them and with the problem we have with those we did elect not representing us the last thing we need is unlected czars who are not acountable to us.
Obama has a very comunist philosophy and agenda. This should have been well known before the election. But again the average person is an idiot and so here we are with Obama. It really makes me hate america.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
I have some additional czar suggestions:
margarita czar- Jimmy buffet
gay shorts czar- Richard Simmons
underpants czar- Will Ferrell
urinal czar- Vern Troyer
Botox czar- stifflers mom
Pot czar- Seth Rogan
nose czar- Owen Wilson
cute mole czar- Eva Mendez
douche czar- Bill Mahr
Any others?
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
So what is so "communist" about the whole thing?
You guys have let the media convince you that this whole "CZAR" thing is a new trend. They aren't always called "CZAR"(it isn't always in their title for what little difference that makes), but this has gone since FDR - and the tradition has continued with
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE. They have good reason - these people are useful. They focus on and coordinate specific issues with minimal bureaucracy. Yet... they don't have nearly the power that you people seem to think they do. That's all a bunch of new hype for old news... hogwash under the bridge. These people are essentially executive assistants. The power they hold is laughable.
Yes, our last president used MORE of these people than our current president(greatly increasing on the number any other president had), so tell me why the outrage now? Just kidding - you don't need to tell me of something so obvious as media invented outrage. FYI #1 - GWB did NOTHING WRONG in doing exactly the same thing as is done today. FYI #2 - some of the current CZARs are carry overs from the last administration(probably because they are considered good at what they do much like SOD Robert Gates).
And for those who might have heard of certain documents...
Article II, section 2, end of clause 1: "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone."
Case closed. Now you can wash a little of the sand out.
lol, Scotta...I nominate myself for Turbo Czar!
bk3k wrote:So what is so "communist" about the whole thing?
You guys have let the media convince you that this whole "CZAR" thing is a new trend. They aren't always called "CZAR"(it isn't always in their title for what little difference that makes), but this has gone since FDR - and the tradition has continued with EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE. They have good reason - these people are useful. They focus on and coordinate specific issues with minimal bureaucracy. Yet... they don't have nearly the power that you people seem to think they do. That's all a bunch of new hype for old news... hogwash under the bridge. These people are essentially executive assistants. The power they hold is laughable.
Yes, our last president used MORE of these people than our current president(greatly increasing on the number any other president had), so tell me why the outrage now? Just kidding - you don't need to tell me of something so obvious as media invented outrage. FYI #1 - GWB did NOTHING WRONG in doing exactly the same thing as is done today. FYI #2 - some of the current CZARs are carry overs from the last administration(probably because they are considered good at what they do much like SOD Robert Gates).
And for those who might have heard of certain documents...
Article II, section 2, end of clause 1: "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone."
Case closed. Now you can wash a little of the sand out.
+1
Bush had just as many as Obama if not more. I think the recent count was 32 for Obama and 36 for Bush.
Not to say I agree with the whole "czar" thing, but it's not like this is new. My biggest problem with it, is the vetting process. At least show the people who it is that is advising our president. Clearly there are many of them that are not advising the president as to what the PEOPLE want, but what the bureaucrats want.
And this goes for both sides of the isle. They both need to shape the @!#$ up.
Spike J wrote:What the hell is it with Obama and all these Czars? Auto Czar, FCC Diversity Czar, etc... Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid. Last I heard this was still America not some communist country. I figured Obama was going to do some crazy @!#$ but damn. Whats next a Bathroom Czar too make sure people aren't plugging toilets.
The Czar's NEVER ruled in a communist Russia. . . .
FAIL.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Well, you know how it goes...anytime they can get the words 'Obama" and "Communist" into the same sentence, the urge is impossible to resist. Doesn't need to be accurate
Short Hand wrote:Spike J wrote:What the hell is it with Obama and all these Czars? Auto Czar, FCC Diversity Czar, etc... Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid. Last I heard this was still America not some communist country. I figured Obama was going to do some crazy @!#$ but damn. Whats next a Bathroom Czar too make sure people aren't plugging toilets.
The Czar's NEVER ruled in a communist Russia. . . .
FAIL.
+1
The term "czar" or "tsar" was regarded higher than the term "king" in in Russia during the 1400's upto around the late 1800's to early 1900's.
But that was also not the days of Communist Russia.
J03Y wrote:Short Hand wrote:Spike J wrote:What the hell is it with Obama and all these Czars? Auto Czar, FCC Diversity Czar, etc... Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid. Last I heard this was still America not some communist country. I figured Obama was going to do some crazy @!#$ but damn. Whats next a Bathroom Czar too make sure people aren't plugging toilets.
The Czar's NEVER ruled in a communist Russia. . . .
FAIL.
+1
The term "czar" or "tsar" was regarded higher than the term "king" in in Russia during the 1400's upto around the late 1800's to early 1900's.
But that was also not the days of Communist Russia.
Yep - they where overthrown and killed by the Communist Revolution itself.
People wanting to attach so much excess meaning to specific words should at least have their historical/general facts straight.
sndsgood wrote:is obama calling them czars? or is it just the media? anyone know. seems obama gets the backlash for anything obama related regardless of wether or not he had anything to do with it.
Yes, he and his administration have referred to them as "czars". Although now they are trying to turn back on using that term to describe them. Now it's really more of a media term than any kind of official term.
Here's one quick example of Obama using the term czar.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Urban-and-Metropolitan-Roundtable/
I personally don't have an issue with the term, or the fact that these positions even exist. I do have an issue with the people that fill the positions and how they are vetted, or lack there of. There are quite a few people in these positions that have communist/socialist/radical ties and pasts. That alone throws a red flag IMO, but clearly some people think it's no problem. And even when someone tries to point these things out it's "only because you're a racist" or some other partisan BS.
You know that old saying, "show me your friends and I'll show you your future".
$0.02
To all:
Frankly, I see it all as another tempest in a teapot, a mere "talking point" to heap more divisive derision on the new administration. Assigning a staff is what a new administration does. This is not radically different than what any other incoming administration has done since forever. Please spare me any urge to show me "specific differences" between what's happening here now and previous administrations...such detail would be expected, not every administration would do it identically. So long as no laws are broken, and executive branch privileges are not abused, it is SO a non-issue.
As far as the competency and vetting of the appointed, that's also nothing new, and failing to properly screen applicants is neither a Dem or Repub exclusive. Yes, the current process caught some bad apples. Great that this was uncovered and therefore addressed. Next subject, please...I hope it's considerably more important than this moanfest.
Yawn. Bigger fish to fry, thanks anyway. Besides, I'm more interested in Cabinet positions as the people he surrounds himself with, than a group of mid-level flunkies largely chosen by underlings.
Whatever
Bush enemies said the same about his. Clinton enemies said the same about his.
Besides...whatcha gonna do about it 'cept piss and moan? Nothing of value is achieved, other than advertising dollars for Rush, Glenn and Bill.
Short Hand wrote:Spike J wrote:What the hell is it with Obama and all these Czars? Auto Czar, FCC Diversity Czar, etc... Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid. Last I heard this was still America not some communist country. I figured Obama was going to do some crazy @!#$ but damn. Whats next a Bathroom Czar too make sure people aren't plugging toilets.
The Czar's NEVER ruled in a communist Russia. . . .
FAIL.
FAIL I think not
This comment
Quote:
Last I heard this was still America not some communist country.
was for this
Quote:
Now there's a @!#$ Pay Czar to make sure certain people don't get overpaid.
not the Czar thing in general because I do remember my World History classes.
America is supposed to be a free market country where businesses owners, shareholders or board of directors decide what CEO's,COO's,CFO's, company presidents etc... get paid what. The government shouldn't have a say in what they can get in salary even if the government did bail them out unelss the government took the company over for good.
Spike J wrote:America is supposed to be a free market country where businesses owners, shareholders or board of directors decide what CEO's,COO's,CFO's, company presidents etc... get paid what. The government shouldn't have a say in what they can get in salary even if the government did bail them out unelss the government took the company over for good.
Agreed. However, the concept of limiting high-ranking pay is not unique, nor new. Japan's been doing it for years in a free-market economy...let's not forget that even with their economy in the doldrums in recent years, they've still managed to hand us our asses in the North American car market. Am I keying the limiting of those Japanese exectutives' salaries to a more competitive market position? You bet I am. The money saved can go right back into more important aspects of the company, such as competitive design. I'd say the results are all the evidence needed.
One must keep in mind that the uproar against abusive pay for high executives is well-founded based upon our recent economic collapse. They brought this scrutiny upon themselves via greed and slipshod management techniques. The image of Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burns beneath him comes to mind...
