Posted by Guest (Post 503645)

Question: Why does a President need czars?

Question: Do you believe this to be a rhetorical question?

Question: Is a czar in some instances better than a member of Congress?

Question: Based on Obama's behavior do you believe he believes the rest of the country behaves in the same manner as Chicago when it comes to the issue of politics?

Question: Has Obama lived up to his promise of a transparent administration/government?

Question: Has Obama lived up to his pledge of hope and change?

Question: Do you believe based on Obama's comments concerning America as not being exceptional and his continuing apologies to foreign governments an indication that he has international leanings vis a vis nationalisn?

Question: Do you believe Obama is up front with the American people about the nations concerns?

Question: Do you believe based on Obama's performance to date that he is deserving of another term in office?

Question" Do you believe in this day of technology that we really need 435 representatives and 100 senators?

Question: Do you believe if the number of congressional members were reduced we could end the gridlock?

Posted by Guest (Post 503672)

In answer to a few of Rubicon's questions:

1. I have no idea of where the term "czar" came from when taken in the context of our government. However, from what I know of it when I was in Washington a few years ago, a "czar" is an expert in some specified field who is hired to give advise to one of the cabinet heads or the President. I have a friend who was dubbed "steam czar" by the Washington Post as he was the government expert on the steam tunnels that connected all the government buildings downtown. In government titling, there is no such official title as "czar" but would be called a "special assistant".

2. Regarding the number of Representatives and Senators - The number of senators is set by the Constitution and the representatives is set by the Constitution by population - I do not know who decided 435 - but it is on the population of the state. Do we need that many? Probably not but it would take an act of Congress to change it and would Congress vote to downsize itself?

3. Based on Pres. Obama's 3.5 years in office, should we elect him again? To me, the answer is "Yes".

Posted by Guest

That's not what Czars have become in government. Czars don't answer to anyone to the President and they have real power bestowed by the President that circumvent Congressional Authority in many cases.

Posted by Guest (Post 504366)

Nope, old buddy, you have that wrong.

I would also challenge you to find an official title in the Office of Personnel Management titles in any Federal agency of "Czar".

Posted by Guest (Post 504655)

Didn't George W. Bush have as many, if not more, "czars" as President Obama?

Posted by Guest (Post 504690)

Technically, yes. The difference is that the Bush "czars" where what you thought czars still were, and that is advisors.

Obama's "czars" have unaccountable power.

More Unaccountable Obama Czars - Phyllis Schlafly - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1

Posted by Guest (Post 504708)

RichieLion, it is so good to have you around. You are always good for a laugh and then to go even bigger by quoting Phyllis Schlafly as a source is the icing on the cake. Thanks for the big laugh!

Posted by Guest (Post 504861)

Laugh all you want. This just tells me you're stumped. I'll just chalk this up in my column.

Posted by Guest (Post 504690)

Technically, yes. The difference is that the Bush "czars" where what you thought czars still were, and that is advisors.

Obama's "czars" have unaccountable power.

More Unaccountable Obama Czars - Phyllis Schlafly - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1

Posted by Guest (Post 503538)

He does not need congress with all the ways he has found to circumvent congress and with a wave of his magic staff we have new rules and regulations.

First of all I don't believe that everyone NEEDS to go to college. It is a mill for creating new progressives. The left needs this mill to keep their dream alive.
College is a privilege not a right. It is a personal decision to go to college and to figure out how to pay for it. If you or your parents don't have the means to pay for it then you get loans or grants. These are contracts and you agree to pay for them in exchange for the education. There is no right for it to be cheap or free unless that was agreed to before hand.

Students have been brainwashed into believing that they MUST go to college to be successful but there are many ways to to get a good job or career. One of the lost arts is getting a job and working your way up!

Interest rates constantly change and I don't see why students should have some sort of guarantee of constant or low interest rates unless that was part of the contract.