He may be a douchebag, but there isn't a need to use his name.

7/15/2009 8:58:11 PM

hey, he put it out there

7/15/2009 8:59:31 PM

^ Wrong. Stop being a creepy fuckhead.

Concerning the topic, let's recap some of the problems with czars:

1. Obama has more czars than most other administrations. Why does this matter? See below.

2. Czars can be a substitute for concrete action. Hey, we appointed a czar for problem X. Yay! Wait, wut does this mean exactly?

Quote :

"An irony exists here: Czars have no command authority. They are basically an Obama public-relations move to create positions of responsibility over seemingly intractable policy problems -- and to foster a sense that progress is being made because someone is in charge. In other words, Obama's 'czaring' of America shows he is serious about appearing to be serious about solving many of our problems."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_633188.html

3. Financial concerns. Obama's czars (at least 22 and climbing) appear to be earning the maximum of $172,200--22 x $172,200 = $3,788,400. What are we getting for this money?

And there is the issue of efficiency. Having czars and cabinet-level secretaries seem like a redundancy to me.

Quote :

"'I think the number probably is getting closer to a 100,' said James Bailey, a leadership professor at George Washington University, who noted that's not the norm at most Fortune 500 companies. 'Most CEOs have about seven to 10 people reporting to them,' he said, adding that Obama has perhaps 100 people reporting to him. 'Can they reasonably and responsibly state up with all of the elements that are required to execute their job responsibly,' he said."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/14/question-obama-czars/

4. And Democrats are concerned about czars, too. Constitutionality is a primary concern.

Quote :

"'They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency [!], and reduce accountability.'"

--Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4828759.shtml

Now, I have listed again some reasons that Obama's czars are a concern. Can any of you formulate legitimate responses or will you continue to call me names and post fun pictures? If you can't post a legit response, please just stay the fuck out of my thread, okay? Thanks.

7/15/2009 9:37:49 PM

Quote :

"Can any of you formulate legitimate responses or will you continue to call me names and post fun pictures?"

7/15/2009 11:18:21 PM

Quote :

"Wrong. Stop being a creepy fuckhead."

hey, i read it on tww. you or someone else put it out there. lol, you just want to call someone else creepy for once.

Quote :

"And Democrats are concerned about czars, too. Constitutionality is a primary concern."

Yes, this is a legitimate concern. Byrd is partial to these sorts of constitutional issues. It's a legitimate concern and if you want to discuss the constitutionality of advisers, then fine, but it's probably a short discussion.

HOWEVER

I abide by the law. The law is as follows:

Quote :

"Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Quote :

"So, what this means in practical terms: o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end. o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating. o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the other side. "

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

This thread is over. It's not your fault, but rules are rules.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 11:18:45 PM

I tried to head this shit off in the OP, but some of you had to be stupid assholes anyway--just couldn't help yourselves.

Quote :

"Before someone 'educates' me that (1) these czars are dissimilar to Russian czars and (2) that the Obama administration didn't invent these positions and (3) that 'czar' is not their official titles, let me indicate my objection."

Okay, fun pictures it is!

7/16/2009 4:53:01 AM

haven't most of these positions been present in previous administrations? why the sudden outrage? wait... i think i know

7/16/2009 9:01:40 AM

Why exactly is this an issue?

If I had to manage 300 million people, i would probably have a team of subordinates working under me to sift through all the information i would undoubtedly receive.

It seems really dumb to criticize the "czar" positions when there is nothing obvious to criticize. Should the president not seek more efficient ways to organize information? I would rather him do this than make off-the-cuff decisions or only listening to a handful of crooked advisers like our last president.

7/16/2009 11:13:42 AM

Quote :

"Most CEOs have about seven to 10 people reporting to them,' he said, adding that Obama has perhaps 100 people reporting to him."

So... the stupidity of this statement is self evident to everyone here, right?

7/16/2009 12:17:56 PM

it's uncanny...

7/16/2009 12:22:00 PM

^^^ Ask Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) why it's an issue.

^^ It's about efficiency and effectiveness as these goals relate to management span and direct reports. The only thing "self evident" (sic) is that your stupidity is self-evident.

^ Fun picture time again! Genius, pure genius!

7/16/2009 5:05:12 PM

Our new science czar is a hoot! Forced sterilzations for everybody! Democrats doing stuff...


http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity

7/16/2009 5:19:34 PM

Obama's "science czar" is a Christian, too. Why don't some of you come in here and make fun of him for believing in a bearded miracle man who lives in the clouds?

NO

INVISIBLE

SKY

DADDY!!!1

7/16/2009 5:22:12 PM

its kinda hard to write off everyone who believes in a bearded sky man. Sometimes you just have to over look it.

7/16/2009 5:29:19 PM

^ "Sometimes"? Which times?

7/16/2009 6:52:05 PM

What has Holdren done to inject his personal religious beliefs into public policy?

7/16/2009 7:03:36 PM

He'll just interject his wacky personal beliefs instead, whew what a relief!

7/16/2009 7:15:42 PM

Maybe his personal beliefs aren't so wacky.

SCANDALOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7/16/2009 9:21:48 PM

^ Um. . .if the following is one of his "personal beliefs," then, yeah, it is "wacky":

Quote :

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

-- John P. Holdren, "science czar"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/enough_is_enough.html

And socialist Carol Browner, "climate czarina," has a long history of not even bothering to read the crap proposals she pushes:

September 1998
Volume 16, Number 9

Hot Air
by Patrick Weinert

Quote :

"When Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed new air quality standards last year, she claimed that thousands of Americans are being killed every year by tiny particles in the air with diameters of less than 2.5 microns. The EPA currently regulates airborne pollutants 10 microns in diameter, so Browner asked to have the agency's powers expanded. Charcoal grills, lawnmowers, and other gasoline-powered equipment could be outlawed when they produce too much pollution. She admitted she had not read the government studies she cited very carefully, but still announced that 'when it comes to protecting our kids, I will not be swayed.'"

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=63

Second source:

Quote :

"The EPA has estimated that as much as half of the U.S. population will have to limit the use of automobiles, lawn mowers, wood-burning stoves, fireplaces, and even barbecue grills."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ag/hagEpaair.000/hagEpaair_0.htm

Quote :

"Q.: Have you read [the current climate change bill]? Czarina Browner: I've read vast portions of it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbtEjj1MPiY

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 3:39 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 3:36:58 AM

I think the left should take the initiative on forced abortions and sterilizations by starting on themselves. Lead by example people!

7/17/2009 5:39:32 AM

i was under the impression "the left" already does with abortions

7/17/2009 11:02:22 AM

(the right too, really)

7/17/2009 11:04:22 AM

Yeah, but they keep it a secret.

JUST LIKE GOD INTENDED.

7/17/2009 11:44:29 AM

Should we run down the list of right-wing appointments with beliefs in everything from young earth creationism, to the need to behead drug dealers, to the evils of the Beach Boys?

just picking 3 at random:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft

Watt's my favorite Secretary ever!

Quote :

"Fun picture time again! Genius, pure genius!"

when you applied to a program in Liberal Studies, did you think you were applying to a program to study liberals? did you think you were going to take classes like "Liberal Studies 201: Al Gore Wants to Rule the World"

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 2:36:55 PM

I suppose we could "run down" lists of appointments dating back to the antebellum period or further, but how about we stick with, you know, THE ADMINISTRATION THAT'S CURRENTLY IN POWER?

Okay? Thanks!

7/17/2009 6:37:38 PM

LOL, comparing one's opinion of the Beach Boys to freakin' forced sterilizations is laughable.

7/17/2009 7:23:55 PM

Honestly, I'd rather not have anybody in office who doesn't appreciate Pet Sounds.

7/17/2009 8:05:15 PM

Pet Sounds might be the greatest album ever.

I will always continue to hate Mike Love for many reasons, high among them was sabotaging Smile.

7/17/2009 8:58:39 PM

What Green Jobs?
Washington is spending $60 billion to create the careers of the future, but not a single green job yet exists. Obama's 'green czar' explains.

Quote :

"President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his stimulus package to building a new green-based economy rich in renewable energy and strategies to cut carbon. But despite the price tag, not one green job yet exists. It comes down to a problem of etymology. No one can yet agree on what a green job actually is. The working definition paints a broad stroke: a job that's good for the economy while simultaneously healing the earth. But that leaves lots open to interpretation—natural gas is technically a cleaner fuel than crude oil, but it's still unsustainable—making it difficult, if not impossible, to measure whether eco-based jobs are being created and whether, as the administration has claimed, they're the saviors of a sagging economy."

Quote :

"Why are we still without an objective definition of a green job? Well, we still don't have a unified definition, and that's not unusual in a democracy. It takes a while for all the states and the federal government to come to some agreement. But the Department of Labor is working on it very diligently. Fundamentally, it's getting there, but we haven't crossed the finish line yet."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209073/page/1

Sweet Jesus.

8/4/2009 5:37:30 PM

8/4/2009 5:44:59 PM

^ You obviously have no retort. Way to go.

Obama: We'll save the economy with green jobs!

Citizens: Wait, can you define "green job"?

Obama officials/supporters: RACIST CRYBABY!!!1

8/4/2009 5:54:13 PM

You are a broken record.

Posting a quote with bolded words, a link, and rolly eyes isn't really providing much of anything.

8/4/2009 5:55:34 PM

Quote :

"^ You obviously have no retort. Way to go. Obama: We'll save the economy with green jobs! Citizens: Wait, can you define "green job"? Obama officials/supporters: RACIST CRYBABY!!!1"

8/4/2009 5:58:08 PM

Obama: *points to wikipedia*

A green job, also called a green-collar job is any job in an organization that provides a product or service that allows consumers to either consume less, either because of the lower price or greater efficiency, or produce more due to the utilization of this product or service, both of which actions reduce total energy use and environmental impact on the planet.

8/4/2009 6:04:59 PM

^ No, he didn't--back to reality. Obama's "green czar" can't even define the very job that candidate Obama pledged would save the economy.

Quote :

"Why are we still without an objective definition of a green job? Well, we still don't have a unified definition, and that's not unusual in a democracy. It takes a while for all the states and the federal government to come to some agreement. But the Department of Labor is working on it very diligently. Fundamentally, it's getting there, but we haven't crossed the finish line yet."

Green Jobs: White House Promises 'Many' Through 2016

Quote :

"The report acknowledges the difficulties in defining just what a 'green job' really is, and shies away from the huge numerical targets that marked candidate Obama's campaign-trail rhetoric. But it also notes that plenty of occupations—such as laying new electricity-transmission lines—are part of the clean-energy economy, even if they aren't 'environmental' per se."

http://tinyurl.com/n5jqww

8/4/2009 9:02:52 PM

U.S. Pay Czar Says He Has 'Clawback' Power

Quote :

"Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said Sunday that he had broad and 'binding' authority over executive compensation, including the ability to 'claw back' money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power."

http://tinyurl.com/pf5n5q

8/17/2009 9:17:06 AM

I think there is something patently wrong with a guy making 100 million in compensation taking risky bets with other peoples money while the American Taxpayer is backstopping his activities.

8/17/2009 9:22:59 AM

^ You would. Life is risky.

And nobody forced those investors to part with their money--caveat emptor. Can you show me what gives government the right to intervene in private compensation agreements--retroactively even?

Since institutions of higher learning also receive taxpayer money, I assume that you'll be calling for the government to "clawback" top administrators' salaries? The Obama base won't call for such a thing, though--it's only greedy corporate types that deserve this type of treatment.

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2009 9:41:40 AM

Quote :

"I assume that you'll be calling for the government to "clawback" top administrators' salaries?"

Yes, definitely.

Quote :

"The Obama base won't call for such a thing, though--it's only greedy corporate types that deserve this type of treatment."

Do I really need to go through the Easley thread and find all the libs who are glad to see her go?

Quote :

"Can you show me what gives government the right to intervene in private compensation agreements--retroactively even?"

Can you show me what explicitly denies it?

8/17/2009 9:53:13 AM

^ For starters, contract law and the 10th Amendment.

8/17/2009 10:36:30 AM

i too wonder about these 'czars'

8/17/2009 11:07:37 AM

Look, if these banks didn't want to play ball with new rules and a government bailout, they could have just went bankrupt.

It's stupid as hell to cry contract contract when that contract wouldn't even exist if not for the generosity of the American taxpayer.

8/17/2009 11:51:41 AM

^ 1. Not all the banks took money voluntarily:

Banks to Treasury: Keep Your Bailout. We’ll Keep Our Bonuses.

Quote :

"Yingling tried to persuade Paulson that most U.S. banks have no subprime-mortgage related troubles: 'Almost 95% of banks in this country remain well-capitalized. Since that time, many banks have been contacted by regulators, and urged, sometimes forcefully, to participate in the [Capital Purchase Program].'"

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/10/31/banks-to-treasury-keep-your-bailout-well-keep-our-bonuses/

2. Obama won't let some banks pay back the money:

Some Banks Not Approved To Return TARP Money

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105188938

3. And it's stupid as hell for you to act like contracts don't even matter--I'll bet one would matter if it were between you and another party. And the contracts at issue existed prior to the interventions with taxpayer money.

8/17/2009 12:11:12 PM

#1 Is irrelevant
#2 Get educated on the bailouts and the economy in general
#3

Quote :

"I'll bet one would matter if it were between you and another party."

Well, I'm not a depository bank that would be bankrupt without the American Taxpayer, so your astute observation is dead.

Quote :

"And the contracts at issue existed prior to the interventions with taxpayer money."

Do you even listen to yourself? That contract would have no meaning if it weren't for the taxpayer. We (and most certainly you) don't know what winks were made behind closed doors. The very fact that C is thinking of changing his compensation terms or thinking about spinning off PhiBro is all the evidence anyone needs to know the bank czar has a leg to stand on here.

Conclusion, you lose yet again.

8/17/2009 12:47:23 PM

^ Sweet Jesus, you're an idiot--I'm fucking so done with your stupidity.

1. The point at issue is absolutely not irrelevant. You claimed that banks could've refused the money, and I refuted this with specifics.

2. Educating oneself about the economy--and most things, for that matter--is ongoing. It's a journey, not a destination--I wouldn't expect you to be able to grasp this concept.

3. It doesn't matter, you buffoon. The contracts I'm referring to were between employers and employees and would function like other private contracts. What part of this don't you understand?

And you have yet to produce anything (other than your nutball opinions) that shows the government has the right to renegotiate--retroactively or otherwise--private contracts. You got owned on this one, too.

Conclusion: You don't know shit--as usual. Go back to your "financial blogs" and listening to Krugman and STFU.

8/17/2009 1:01:58 PM

Quote :

"1. The point at issue is absolutely not irrelevant. You claimed that banks could've refused the money, and I refuted this with specifics."

Look, I didn't believe it at the time, but maybe it was a bit of forethought from the Fed and the Treasury to not single out the worst performing banks for fear of a run on the bank. The ones that didn't need the bailout already paid it back. This is irrelevant to a discussion of those banks that are currently still being backstopped, and C is one of those. Additionally, this was done under the former administration anyway.

Quote :

"Educating oneself about the economy--and most things, for that matter--is ongoing. It's a journey, not a destination--I wouldn't expect you to be able to grasp this concept."

Of all the people in here commenting about the economy, you're generally the most clueless about the minutiae. And that's before I point out the self owning of a thread you have in this section.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter, you buffoon. The contracts I'm referring to were between employers and employees and would function like other private contracts."

Oh, the old angry shriveled balls said it, it must be true. It doesn't matter that C would be bankrupt without the taxpayer making any contracts signed before their Chapter 11 pointless. Nothing else to see, moving right along

Quote :

"And you have yet to produce anything (other than your nutball opinions) that shows the government has the right to renegotiate--retroactively or otherwise--private contracts. You got owned on this one, too."

I absolutely have, I can't help you're too deep on sucking some cock to notice.

Quote :

"Conclusion: You don't know shit--as usual. Go back to your "financial blogs" and listening to Krugman and STFU."

Pay attention you fucking shithead /message_topic.aspx?topic=573410

You don't know shit, par for the fooking hooksaw course.



[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2009 1:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Look, I didn't believe it at the time, but maybe it was a bit of forethought from the Fed and the Treasury to not single out the worst performing banks for fear of a run on the bank."

While I will agree with you on the whole sentence, didn't we establish a while ago that some banks were forced to take the money? Why would you dispute it now? or did I just misinterpret when you are saying "at the time" was?

Quote :

"The ones that didn't need the bailout already paid it back."

After practically shouting to the presses what was being done to them (by the Obama administration, mind you...) let's not give Obama a free pass on this by saying "they paid it back, so it wasn't that bad."

8/17/2009 7:02:31 PM

Quote :

"While I will agree with you on the whole sentence, didn't we establish a while ago that some banks were forced to take the money? Why would you dispute it now? or did I just misinterpret when you are saying "at the time" was?"

I was fairly adamant that banks weren't forced to take the money they didn't need. I actually didn't figure they (Fed/Treasury) we're smart enough to play a shell game so that the public wouldn't figure out who was really in the shitter, and who was just sitting on the edge. But...it has taken relaxation of mark to market rules for all but GS (who got a bailout funneled via AIG) for those that paid back the TARP to do so. If they were actually forced to mark the toxic shit at market values, they couldn't have paid it back because their Tier 1 ratios would be toast.

Quote :

"After practically shouting to the presses what was being done to them (by the Obama administration, mind you...) let's not give Obama a free pass on this by saying "they paid it back, so it wasn't that bad.""

I don't see why we shouldn't give Obama a free pass, TARP was enacted under the last administration.

8/17/2009 7:34:18 PM

doesn't mean Obama had to use the other half of it... Or, are you using this as a way to support things libbies bitched about Bush over that Obama is now doing? "Hey, Bush started it..."

8/17/2009 7:41:27 PM

What does the other half of the TARP have to do with the funds that were given out under the previous administration to bail out banks? My comment wasn't finger pointing or a judgment of the action, it was correcting your misstatement.

8/17/2009 7:58:55 PM