The labeling of disagreed-with ideals as a mental disorder is self-imposed ignorance. It's not enough for them to be wrong, they have to be CRAAAAAAAAAZY. Get over it.
I'm sure they do, what's your point again? Cutting government fat will somehow HURT job creation in the PRIVATE sector? Got it.
Not that I like to be the strong judge you are, but this thread was retarded before it was conceived.
Wrong is good enough for me. I'm not so filled with hate that I have to ascribe them mental disorders they don't have, or try to find some other belittling way to explain it.
Yeah but they have a lot of power because they are the heads of the departments of bureaucracy. They control parts of government without ever being elected. So it is just a word, but the word is reflective of the powerful position they hold. Not super powerful, but powerful nonetheless and there are many of them. Sounds pretty stupid. Why would we just replace the czars? The whole point of removing them is to reduce the size of government. We don't need them, before Bush we only had 10 czars, now we have almost 40. Obama and Bush were ridiculous with their Czar usage lol. No, not really. How is it completely symbolic? I would argue that the effort to get rid of the czars is not symbolic at all, it's actually a concrete action aimed at reducing the size of government. Some "Republitards" and a lot more Libertarians would like to see the size of government bureaucracy dwindle down, and that's whats being worked towards.
And how much of an impact will that have? 'We're all about creating jobs, so let's cut jobs to save money to create jobs.' Yeah, liberalism is retarded. How bout we cut the defense budget to save money, increase taxes on the rich, and let people who have jobs keep them?
I'm all for cutting the defense budget, every federal entitlement program, and winding down every unconstitutional part of the federal government. They deserve MAYBE 10% of our money, tops. Local/State governments, I'd be happy to pay higher taxes to them (don't like your state laws, move) - the federal government can get fucked.
I honestly didn't expect it to turn into a, "But Bush did it!" thread, I thought this would be a bipartisan issue among blades. Stoners have had to deal with the drug czar muckin up our shit since Nixon. There were Democrats that voted to remove these positions, but they are probably just closet Rethuglicans, amidoinitrite?
I'm just pissed off that this is what is getting the focus. I want someone to explain to me how firing people in DC is going to help employ people in my community. Maybe it will, but if you want me to believe it you should probably start with a more direct solution to the problem so I can at least trust that you're on the case.
A lot of jobs that employed bureaucrats could be done as simply consultants. Sure, firing the 'czars' will kill jobs, but think of how many jobs are destroyed by the high taxes to pay for the salaries of these bureaucrats. It's definitely grandstanding by Republicans, but they aren't exactly making me beg them to stop on this one.
But does this bill get rid of the departments they run? Or does it just get rid of the people that currently run those departments and throw their authority back to someone else? And before Bush we only had 10 Czars because the name "Czar" had not been applied to whomever would have had their authority anyway. Bush and Obama have not applied "Czar" to these positions. The media has. Czar isn't actually even part of their titles. You could call the Speaker or the House "The Legislative Czar" or the Joint Chiefs of Staff "The War Czars". Yeah, it's not part of their official title, but "TARP Czar" isn't really that person's title either. A concrete action would be to get rid of the whole department that oversees and administers TARP. A concrete action would be getting rid of the Department of Health and Human Services, not just the media-labeled individual/"Czar" that runs it. You could say that the President is just the "Executive Branch Czar" and eliminate his job too. What does that actually do to reduce the size of Government? It reduces it by one six-figure salary. The power would just go to the VP or the cabinet. I say again, getting rid of "Czars" makes Republicans feel good. But unless it is done by eliminating the departments/organizations/agencies/offices that give them their power, then it's purely symbolic. It doesn't get rid of the authority they represent, it just gets rid of current figurehead.
It should get rid of the departments they run, but you're right it doesn't. I don't know where the authority will go lol. I think I may have been wrong to disagree with you, this bill isn't good enough, it's more of a symbolic thing. We need a bill that completely eliminates these departments I know czar isn't part of their titles. Czar is a word that describes officials who are appointed by the president. I don't buy your line of reasoning that there were actually the same amount of officials we could call czars before Bush. Are you sure, or are you just pretty sure? No because the speaker of the house is elected by the people, the person doesn't get appointed directly to the position, they must be elected first. Czar describes officials who have been appointed by the president, some of whom have been confirmed by the senate but not all. I agree there, although that's the one czar I might be careful to get rid of. You're right, it's basically saying, "We don't like the person you picked." You can't use the word czar that loosely. Well it eliminates that position of authority, so maybe the president or someone will be held accountable for the actions of the departments instead of some czar he picked. That's arguably better than the power being in an appointed department head's hands. Almost completely agree. I still think it's a step in the right direction; however, I know pretty damn well that the Republicans aren't going to do anything good with the changes. They'll use them to further their mostly shitty agenda.