Alright geniuses, can't you tell that Belly copy/pasted? All those words were spelled right and the sentence structure was pretty darn good. (NO offense Belly)

It's not like those are his opinions, and he probably didn't care enough to take some stuff out.

Personally, it didn't bother me one bit, in fact, in one of those instances it helped remind me about some controversey that surrounded said person.

BGFalcons82;635992 wrote:How in the hell did we get to this point where we have these little fiefdoms set up that have no oversight and we have no idea what the hell they are up to? By the way....we are over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt with no end in sight. Holy fuck, Batman.

Well... there's LOTS of people who want to lean the European way. Maybe we should retitle some of those czars to Duke, Earl, Viscount, "Honourable", Sir, etc.
Then maybe we can talk

Hell, we ain't in Russia for Christ's sake. We don't need no damn Czars in the USA. Let's cut all of these Czars out and save the country a whole lotta money. I'll bet if we get rid of them we can balance the budget. Geezus sakes alive, any idiot can see that.

ptown_trojans_1;636034 wrote:Border czar can probably go away and be the sole focus on DHS.
CT Czar is John Brennan and coordinates DHS, DoD, State and all agencies under the National Security Council.
Weapons czar is Ashton Carter who is not a czar and is an actual DoD personnel working in an actual DoD office.
http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=186
Gitmo is important as it holds all of our detainees and figuring out how to try them in courts and close the facility is pretty damn important.
Sudan, an election is happening there and there is Darfur. Maybe no need.
George Mitchell is the peace czar, an important, some say impossible position, but one again under the National Security Council.
WMD czar under Samore, he links the DoD, State, Energy Dept. and Intelligence Communities on nuclear weapons issues. Recently, he has been really focusing on Iran.

It is all for coordination, because the national security issues facing this country are too much for the National Security Adviser to really sift through, the President, under the 1947 Act, has the power to hire people on specific issues that report to the NSA.

Do not like, then come up with a way to reform the National Security Council than can replace the 1947 Act that Congress granted the President to do under Article II.

ptown - I never said the roles listed weren't important. Certainly, each one regarding security issues has vital national concerns. The problem is...ahem...well...we simply CANNOT afford these people or whatever they are "coordinating". For example, WMD's are very important to understand and know where they are, but to have an appointed "czar" be involved is not a good use of public funds. There are other departments that certainly can cover this issue and we need to get lean and mean, not fat and bloated relying on more and more bureaucracies.

We are broke, ptown. Flat out busted and broke. The old ways MUST be torn down and re-built with better efficiencies and Constitutional-based programs, not some goofnut "Communication Czar" that has no one supervising whatever he's doing. We gotta change now while we have the choices, or soon, the choices will be made for us. We are about to be owned and everyone is running around worried about their ox being gored. God save us.

stlouiedipalma;636304 wrote:Hell, we ain't in Russia for Christ's sake. We don't need no damn Czars in the USA. Let's cut all of these Czars out and save the country a whole lotta money. I'll bet if we get rid of them we can balance the budget. Geezus sakes alive, any idiot can see that.

I'm surprised a solid liberal such as yourself isn't supporting the military/defense czar cut-backs I was criticizing. Hmmm....as long as Obama is in charge, then they are needed or are you really for trimming military and defense style spending? In other words, are you serious or just a political hack?

BGFalcons82;636347 wrote:ptown - I never said the roles listed weren't important. Certainly, each one regarding security issues has vital national concerns. The problem is...ahem...well...we simply CANNOT afford these people or whatever they are "coordinating". For example, WMD's are very important to understand and know where they are, but to have an appointed "czar" be involved is not a good use of public funds. There are other departments that certainly can cover this issue and we need to get lean and mean, not fat and bloated relying on more and more bureaucracies.

We are broke, ptown. Flat out busted and broke. The old ways MUST be torn down and re-built with better efficiencies and Constitutional-based programs, not some goofnut "Communication Czar" that has no one supervising whatever he's doing. We gotta change now while we have the choices, or soon, the choices will be made for us. We are about to be owned and everyone is running around worried about their ox being gored. God save us.

I understand we are "broke". I'm all for slimming down, but to me, these positions inside the White House, in regards to foreign policy and the Security Council, are important. It is all about coordination. It is all about ensuring that State and Defense and the 16 Intelligence Agencies all are on the same page and working toward a common policy on that particular issue. Gates, Clinton, Clapper, etc. all have a lot of issues to look over, and these special areas, WMD, are positions solely looking at those areas and reporting to the President and the rest of the NSC.

Now, I'm all for cutting their salary, but eliminating them from the National Security Council is not wise in my view, and would danger our national security.
I'm also all for efforts to reform the national security council that can streamline it, but no one has really put forth one.

As to communication "czars", eliminate them. As I said, anything not related to the National Security Council, eliminate them.

stlouiedipalma;636304 wrote:Hell, we ain't in Russia for Christ's sake. We don't need no damn Czars in the USA. Let's cut all of these Czars out and save the country a whole lotta money. I'll bet if we get rid of them we can balance the budget. Geezus sakes alive, any idiot can see that.

Czar is a damned media title. Nothing to do with Russia.

And we could cut every Czar and the budget would be nowhere near balanced.

I Wear Pants;636485 wrote:Czar is a damned media title. Nothing to do with Russia.

And we could cut every Czar and the budget would be nowhere near balanced.

That's not what they told me at the Tea Party rally this past summer. Hell, just about everyone I spoke to said that the Czars were the work of those damn socialist Democrats. You'd never catch someone like our Ronald Reagan having anything to do with Czars, and I believe them.

I Wear Pants;636485 wrote:And we could cut every Czar and the budget would be nowhere near balanced.

We know that, cutting czars is merely representative of the major cuts that must be made; my suggestions would obviously include cutting entire 'czar departments/agencies/bureaucracies' ..... as just one area/example of the MAJOR cuts that must be made. When you need to shrink government by 25-50%, obviously every facet of government must eliminate a third to a half of its costs. There will be gnashing of teeth no doubt, but in the end it will be extremely healthy.

QuakerOats;636628 wrote:We know that, cutting czars is merely representative of the major cuts that must be made; my suggestions would obviously include cutting entire 'czar departments/agencies/bureaucracies' ..... as just one area/example of the MAJOR cuts that must be made. When you need to shrink government by 25-50%, obviously every facet of government must eliminate a third to a half of its costs. There will be gnashing of teeth no doubt, but in the end it will be extremely healthy.

I understand that, but if I may, one of the main reasons for 9/11 was the dramatic reductions of the defense and foreign policy budget in the 1990s. How do we not make that mistakes again? We have an example of where drastic cuts to save money actually ended up hurting this country.

^^ I'm not so sure it was about money, rather failing techniques and proper allocation of the resources available. The problem with government is it is sooo slow to move, largely because it has little incentive to move.

Anyone remember this quote:

Public Servant Obama quote: Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game

We the people have put skin into the game and we the have spoken ...Now it time Obama put some skin into the game ...

Cutting the Czar is not going to balance the budget but look at the numbers and you'll feel better about cutting Czar and staff out of the Federal Goverment:

Czars need office staff. The average, annual cost of a government employee, including benefits, is approximately $165,000. Some czars have upwards of 300 employees, and the staff needs office space. Regionally, office space may cost a bit less, but in DC, the going rate will be approximately $25/sq. foot. If the various government employee unions have anything to say about the office environment, (and they usually do) there is a minimum square footage considered essential for each government employee.
Czars' employees need office equipment and supplies. Those costs are the same as in any business: computers, software, photocopy machines, phones, internet, paper, and pens. These necessitate the presence of support personnel: webmasters to maintain the ubiquitous website, IT support for hardware and software, stock/administrative personnel for procuring, maintaining and dispensing supplies. And, that's just for starters. Fed Ex/UPS/postal accounts are needed; courier services for in-town, deliveries. There are conferences and air travel. Czars need local transportation, possibly the Chrysler S300, or Lincoln Towncar with the indispensible DC driver. Office and support costs for a czar and staff can easily range from $5 million to tens of billions per year.

This is an example of both parties creating a situation and now the position and the justification are out of control. Once again goverment abusing the system and the tax payer money for it. I can see where addition support for already establish Federal Agency Departtments may be required.

Obama put some skin in the game ..bro

Belly35;636745 wrote:Obama put some skin in the game ..bro

Chill, man. bho

"Hardworking American families should not be forced to pay millions of dollars to fund these czars, who are implementing radical policies under the cloak of darkness

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/house-republicans-eliminate-obama-czars/

God why don't we just change this word and move on with life.

QuakerOats;636739 wrote:^^ I'm not so sure it was about money, rather failing techniques and proper allocation of the resources available. The problem with government is it is sooo slow to move, largely because it has little incentive to move.

Or worse, incentives not to move. $$$ and funding had nothing do with not stopping the Fort Hood shooter (if you want to get your blood pressure up, read the analysis on why Hasan's issues weren't addressed earlier, or why he was even promoted to Major for that matter). You can't spend your way out of being stupid.

Belly35;686888 wrote:"Hardworking American families should not be forced to pay millions of dollars to fund these czars, who are implementing radical policies under the cloak of darkness

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/house-republicans-eliminate-obama-czars/

Ok, if they cut those, I'm fine with that. Those are mainly domestic focused. I doubt the Senate cuts them though.

Also, the President will just move them around the Executive Branch, under the powers granted to him under the Constitution. For example, the Gitmo czar will probably just be under the National Security Council staff, the State Department or the Defense Department as a Special Assistant.

Belly35;636745 wrote:Anyone remember this quote:

Public Servant Obama quote: Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game

We the people have put skin into the game and we the have spoken ...Now it time Obama put some skin into the game ...

Cutting the Czar is not going to balance the budget but look at the numbers and you'll feel better about cutting Czar and staff out of the Federal Goverment:

Czars need office staff. The average, annual cost of a government employee, including benefits, is approximately $165,000. Some czars have upwards of 300 employees, and the staff needs office space. Regionally, office space may cost a bit less, but in DC, the going rate will be approximately $25/sq. foot. If the various government employee unions have anything to say about the office environment, (and they usually do) there is a minimum square footage considered essential for each government employee.
Czars' employees need office equipment and supplies. Those costs are the same as in any business: computers, software, photocopy machines, phones, internet, paper, and pens. These necessitate the presence of support personnel: webmasters to maintain the ubiquitous website, IT support for hardware and software, stock/administrative personnel for procuring, maintaining and dispensing supplies. And, that's just for starters. Fed Ex/UPS/postal accounts are needed; courier services for in-town, deliveries. There are conferences and air travel. Czars need local transportation, possibly the Chrysler S300, or Lincoln Towncar with the indispensible DC driver. Office and support costs for a czar and staff can easily range from $5 million to tens of billions per year.

This is an example of both parties creating a situation and now the position and the justification are out of control. Once again goverment abusing the system and the tax payer money for it. I can see where addition support for already establish Federal Agency Departtments may be required.

Obama put some skin in the game ..bro

1. Where did you get those numbers?
2. The average is 165,000? Really? Where is that from?
3. Some czars have 300 staff? Really, who? Since most work our of the White House, or the Old and New Executive Building, I doubt that.
4. I would imagine that most of them, since they are in the Executive branch, are in the Old or New executive office building. Or, they are in the many, old and vacate already government owned buildings around DC.
5. Those buildings are already wired or near wired.
6. 5 million to tens of billions? That is a wide range, where do those numbers come from?

Like I said, I'm for cutting the domestic ones, but most of the complaints against czars make no sense coming from people that do not understand the current National Security Council setup and how the Executive runs his WH.