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".

Originally Posted by rubicon

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?

The Government will have to hire some czars to figure this out. They will probably meet in Vegas.

Yes & no.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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".

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion;50***7

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.

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".

Originally Posted by buggyone

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".

It seems there is plenty of evidence of "Czars" exercising real power and not just "advising" or "assisting" as you naively postulate.

You can skim through (I know you will not actually read them) the stories I've provided. I also know you will knock the publications, even though they quote actual sources; as if the vast left wing media would even consider running a story like these.

I can link many more, if you like.

Obama Uses Czars, Recess Appointments, to Bypass Constitution

Michelle Malkin » The power-grabbing Obama czar motto: Yes, we can!

Report: Obama's Czars Are Seizing More Power

Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional - Ken Klukowski - Townhall Conservative Columnists

National Journal Online -- Lost in Transition -- Obama's 'Czars': An Executive Power-Grab?

a real revelation comes when one goes in to research the czars backgrounds......like Van Jones. for one.

It is a quid quo pro group designed to side step congress.

btk

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

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

Technically, yes. The difference is that the Bush "czars" were 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

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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

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!

Originally Posted by buggyone

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!

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

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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

Umm, no, I don't think you chalk this up on your corner. You admit that George W. had as many or more "czars" as Pres. Obama. Both presidents had these special advisors and appointed them in the same way. Downright amazing that even you understand both use them in the same way, appoint them in the same way, that you still hold onto your worn out party line that Pres. Obama's special advisors are a terrible thing.

Once again, racking Phyllis Schlafly up in your corner was a great coup. Keep it up, old buddy.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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

Sure.

Obama Czar | President Obama's czar system concerns some - Los Angeles Times

Originally Posted by notlongnow

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.

clicking the LIKE button