A Pay Czar

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: EXman

What should be disturbing is the amount the Obama administration is increasing the size of the executive branch.

The proper response to the biggest economic crisis in decades is do-nothing laissex-faire.

It's to let the systems collapse, and for Mad Max to save the nation.

The term "Faux outrage" is misdirection from a partisan, and it is a fraud.

Check the mirror. It's pointing out misdirection of faux outrage.

I thought dissent was a conerstone of liberalism? Or is it only when it is yours? I'm starting to just move on to the next comment when I see that term "Faux outrage."

You can lead a horse to water, but...

Seriously be honest. I was with Bush when he was crashing us in the wrong direction. Growing the executive branch by leaps and bounds. Then recinding the ban on hiring PAC people. And not nearly being as transparent as he promised he would. These are all red flags. Regardless of who is in power. I'm an American first not a partisan.

It takes something special to be 'with Bush' at all in 2008 as his chickens came home. I don't think that - his hardcore 20% base - is accurately described as not partisan.

I'm not saying you can't strongly support someone and be not partisan - you can, despite the cynics - but it's hard to say you could with that particular president by that point.

We have people on the left and right who are playing partisan politics with total disregard for our nation.

Sounds pretty uninformed and partisan (the 'middle' has partisans, too) to me to condemn everything Obama is doing as 'playing partisan politics with total disregard for our nation'.

Get back to me when HE sells out the public with policies to increase deregulation that create corruption and crisis.

There's room for criticizing Obama and suspecting problems with some things, but your commentary hardly looks like an antidote to partisan, like an informed post.

After your first response I stopped reading.

Obama is growing parts of the executive branch that have nothing to do with the economy. Reagan had 40 NSC analysts and Obama has 275+ and growing with wider reach and ever growing power. He is overstepping his constitutional role imo.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Read the article and how it specifies they rules are convoluted and complicated and this Czar, all powerful, is the sole decider in how to interpret it.

ONLY FOR COMPANIES RECEIVING BAILOUT FUNDS.

Run your company well and stay "in the black" with no government help, no worries.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EXman

After your first response I stopped reading.

That makes you a twit. But my post is there for others.

Obama is growing parts of the executive branch that have nothing to do with the economy. Reagan had 40 NSC analysts and Obama has 275+ and growing with wider reach and ever growing power. He is overstepping his constitutional role imo.

And JFK's White House staff was a small fraction the size of Reagan's.

You don't understand the phrase you throw around about 'constitutional role'. It doesn't involve the number of NSC analysts Congress agrees to pay for.

 

[heyheybooboo]

EXman and Spidey07 ? - a match made in clueless non-linking ass-facting heaven

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: EXman
After your first response I stopped reading.

Obama is growing parts of the executive branch that have nothing to do with the economy. Reagan had 40 NSC analysts and Obama has 275+ and growing with wider reach and ever growing power. He is overstepping his constitutional role imo.

Faux outrage. :laugh:

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Why don't we just bring back the 90% tax bracket, for those making more than $5 million a year.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
Why don't we just bring back the 90% tax bracket, for those making more than $5 million a year.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
Why don't we just bring back the 90% tax bracket, for those making more than $5 million a year.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

We shouldnt stop there at mimicing the 1950's. Bring back the 20-22% lowest bracket as well.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
Why don't we just bring back the 90% tax bracket, for those making more than $5 million a year.

Why not a 95% tax bracket for those making more than $5 thousand a year?

 

[Moonbeam]

If you want a pay Czar get married.

 

[SP33Demon]

I'm willing to give it a chance but not a fan of exponential red tape.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: EXman

After your first response I stopped reading.

That makes you a twit. But my post is there for others.

Obama is growing parts of the executive branch that have nothing to do with the economy. Reagan had 40 NSC analysts and Obama has 275+ and growing with wider reach and ever growing power. He is overstepping his constitutional role imo.

And JFK's White House staff was a small fraction the size of Reagan's.

You don't understand the phrase you throw around about 'constitutional role'. It doesn't involve the number of NSC analysts Congress agrees to pay for.

Call me a twit all you want but i'm not wasting my time beating my head against the wall for you. For all your crazy point by point theories.

And it does say he can dictate pay? Does say he can fire a CEO? what kinda link do you all need? Why does he need all these Czars? I'm saying that Obama thinks he knows how to run everything and then subcontracts it out to an academic or some other turd that never had to turn a profit. Why is Pay even an issue? Let alone a white house position?

 

[Dari]

You reap what you sow. These execs should not have fucked up their companies and should have refused the bailout fund.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Dari
You reap what you sow. These execs should not have fucked up their companies and should have refused the bailout fund.

They need the government to help them because the government is well known for wise financial decisions.


Socialism

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: EXman

Call me a twit all you want but i'm not wasting my time beating my head against the wall for you. For all your crazy point by point theories.

And it does say he can dictate pay? Does say he can fire a CEO? what kinda link do you all need? Why does he need all these Czars? I'm saying that Obama thinks he knows how to run everything and then subcontracts it out to an academic or some other turd that never had to turn a profit. Why is Pay even an issue? Let alone a white house position?

Because once you control the peoples healthcare, their transportation, their energy usage, their food and their pay - you have total and complete control.

I'd say he's about halfway there and he'll finish within a year.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: EXman

Call me a twit all you want but i'm not wasting my time beating my head against the wall for you. For all your crazy point by point theories.

And it does say he can dictate pay? Does say he can fire a CEO? what kinda link do you all need? Why does he need all these Czars? I'm saying that Obama thinks he knows how to run everything and then subcontracts it out to an academic or some other turd that never had to turn a profit. Why is Pay even an issue? Let alone a white house position?

Because once you control the peoples healthcare, their transportation, their energy usage, their food and their pay - you have total and complete control.

I'd say he's about halfway there and he'll finish within a year.

Shit I thought obama was not a socialist not a totaliatian! err maybe both? He does love centeralized government that is no lie.