Thread: Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

Originally Posted by Bigfella

I realise that you have a few years on me Pari, but I'm certain you weren't around when the Romans were salting Carthaginian soil & I'm pretty sure you weren't old enough to vote when LBJ last sat in the Oval office. Those examples don't apply here.

We are discussing an Administration that was in power 12 months ago, not 20, 30, 40 or 2000 years. It does make a difference. If people have decided that something that they ignored, said noting about or were entirely ignorant of when it was happening 12 months ago is suddenly worthy of criticism, at the very least others have the right to interrogate the motives behind the sudden change in perspective. If someone claims to disagree with something as a matter of principle others certainly have the right to ask whether those principles are informed by a deeply held philosophical belief or partisan politics.

None of which negates my point that attacking the poster isn't a valid response to the argument they raise. It's ad hominem and cheap.
I could just as easily turn your argument around and ask to see proof of your and RR's defence and/or praise of Bush's policies as regards these types of appointments. Otherwise, by your own logic, your current support for Obama in these matters doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

None of which negates my point that attacking the poster isn't a valid response to the argument they raise. It's ad hominem and cheap.
I could just as easily turn your argument around and ask to see proof of your and RR's defence and/or praise of Bush's policies as regards these types of appointments. Otherwise, by your own logic, your current support for Obama in these matters doesn't count.

How else other than to show perspective like the fact check pc can claims Obama is seizing unheard of extra constitutional powers be disputed? Is it really an Ad Hominem attack to point out double standards? You asked why I brought up the past I told you why and explained why it was pertinent. We are talking about claims of quasi dictatorship praise or continued acceptance of more extreme action does have pertinence.

If you were defending the holocaust and damning pol pot I think it would be fair to ask why you approve of one and damn the other. If I called you a hypocrite that would be an ad hominem attack but pointing out hypocrisy isnt the same thing is it? In the case of the Czars I said I had no problem when Reagan Bush or Obama did it. If I was saying I had a problem with Reagan and Bush doing it but not Obama would it be fair for you to point out the double standard? Is it be fair to ask if people approve of the Unitary executive theory who believe Obama is seizing power? These are charges of radical change in the Executives power that are undermining our democracy. Past practice is the only way to measure change and given the gravity of the charges asking why it is now a problem or why more extreme claims are not being criticized is not meant to be an attack on the poster just the basis for the posters claims. I apologize if it has seemed like a personal attack. I meant to show the charges were outrageous when put in perspective.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

How else other than to show perspective like the fact check pc can claims Obama is seizing unheard of extra constitutional powers be disputed? Is it really an Ad Hominem attack to point out double standards?

My Ad hominem comment refers to this

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Is it based on anything more than partisan sniping?

Gunnut is actually providing us with a textbook example above. He has criticized Obama's 'Czars' long & loud & given it as a specific example of Obama overstepping his brief. Yet he was apparently unaware of over 30 similar Bush appointments.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You asked why I brought up the past I told you why and explained why it was pertinent. We are talking about claims of quasi dictatorship praise or continued acceptance of more extreme action does have pertinence.

You explained why you thought it was pertinent. I'll ask you the same question I asked of BF: where can I find support from you of Bush's appointments? Your own logic deems your support fror Obama is pointless unless you demonstrate support for Bush, who as you point out also made appointments of this type.
Either you adhere to the standards you wish to subject Gunnut to, or your defence becomes meaningless.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I said I had no problem when Reagan Bush or Obama did it.

I haven't seen any such historical statement, just as you haven't seen a statement by Gunnut decrying Bush's appointments. Your argument is null and void.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My Ad hominem comment refers to this You explained why you thought it was pertinent. I'll ask you the same question I asked of BF: where can I find support from you of Bush's appointments? Your own logic deems your support fror Obama is pointless unless you demonstrate support for Bush, who as you point out also made appointments of this type.
Either you adhere to the standards you wish to subject Gunnut to, or your defence becomes meaningless.
I haven't seen any such historical statement, just as you haven't seen a statement by Gunnut decrying Bush's appointments. Your argument is null and void.

I agree. I should not ask why they were ok with it in the past. I do believe being aware of something and saying nothing it is approval or neutrality or at best unconcern. What I knew about past administrations and was silent on I was either neutral on or approved or at best unconcerned by it. It still remains a fact that no unprecedented power grab is going on only sop for the last 80 years. It's still a fact if one believes in the Unitary Executive theory espoused first by Reagan then Bush what's been going on is trivial in comparison. Is it fair to ask those charging Obama with a power grab if they believe in the Unitary Executive?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

It's still a fact if one believes in the Unitary Executive theory espoused first by Reagan then Bush what's been going on is trivial in comparison.

I agree.

Is it fair to ask those charging Obama with a power grab if they believe in the Unitary Executive?

Of course. What I'm disagreeing with are the personal attacks such as hypocritical, double standards, partisan sniping etc, as a means of shutting down Gunnuts comnplaints over the number of Obama's 'czars'.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

None of which negates my point that attacking the poster isn't a valid response to the argument they raise. It's ad hominem and cheap.
I could just as easily turn your argument around and ask to see proof of your and RR's defence and/or praise of Bush's policies as regards these types of appointments. Otherwise, by your own logic, your current support for Obama in these matters doesn't count.

RR has made some of my points for me.

From my point of view I was attacking what I see as a bogus argument. Critics of Obama are changing the rules of the game & then claiming Obama is breaking them. On another thread you are discussing 'delegitimation propaganda', I see this as a prettied up version of the same. To me, that is cheap.

I simply used Gunnut as an example because it was convenient. I could just as easily have used Glenn Beck. I wasn't trying to 'shut down' Gn or anyone else, just putting their positions in context.

Personally I wasn't concerned about 'Czars' under Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush & I'm not concerned about them now. Different Presidents, same standard. If I had claimed 'Czars' were a threat to the constitution or part of some dictatorial power grab & then went quiet after the change of government I would quite rightly open myself to precisely the criticism I am making.

As for asking for proof of my past opinions, I don't recall asking anyone else for proof of theirs. If anyone here tells me they held a particular position I take them at their word.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

...Where did you get the information salaries in the executive branch are not reported?

From the White House report to Congress, which they are required to submit every year. Since there is no such thing as an "executive budget". There are 487 people listed as working for the administration in 2009 on the White House report. These are the folks that work directly for the President, staffers, etc. but are not Cabinet positions.

Most of the Obama czars are not listed, and no one knows what their salaries are, or what budget they are paid from.

The Congressionally created and Senate vetted positions are on the list, so we know which ones are actually paid from the White House budget (unless they are funded separately for their own offices, like the drug czar). The rest, who knows? Most likely the department that they are assigned to, like OMB, or the various agencies like DHS or DOE. But these departments are budgeted by the Congress, so creating high-level positions within these agencies and departments means that there are salaries that are off budget.

Or the positions had a name change since the budget was submitted.

Or positions that are not officially called "Czars" but everyone does anyway.

Or it may be in a supplementary budget.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Or the positions had a name change since the budget was submitted.

Or positions that are not officially called "Czars" but everyone does anyway.

Or it may be in a supplementary budget.

The White House Annual Report was for 2009, and submitted in July. So no, it wouldn't list any position created since that time. It is, by law, a list of everyone on the White House payroll.

None of the positions are called "czars" officially. The ones that are referred to as "czars" but have Congressional authorization or confirmation are listed. They are typically called "advisors" to this or that.

There are no supplementary budgets. Only supplementary appropriations. And only one supplemental each year for the last several years, Defense. Funding for the wars.

The "budgets" are only outlines. The Congress isn't bound to follow them, and they never do. The President's budget request gets submitted the first of every year, but it takes all year to get the appropriations bills through Congress, and usually involves bundling a bunch together into an omnibus at the end of the year.

The only thing that counts are appropriations. That's where the money gets spent. The Congress passed a 12% hike, virtually across the board, for the Federal Government this year in the various appropriations bills.

Regardless of all that, the point is that most of the Obama czars aren't on the White House payroll. Ther are two (Volcker and Feinberg) that are working for free. The rest, who knows?

Were you unaware of "Czars" till this year? As FactCheck showed there are actually less Czars than under Bush and for the most part the media creates the label. Do you believe the sources that charge shadow government were unaware that nothing changed in the executive budget since the last administration in regard to advisor pay? Were you aware nothing changed? If so why the concern now? Do you believe in the strong Unitary Executive put forward by Reagan and expanded by Bush? If so how do you balance that against claims of a power grab or shadow government against and Administration that does not espouse that? Also, if you are against it were you unaware of it till now? If so what changed your mind and do you now believe that position of the strong Executive put forward by Bush/Cheney/Reagan is wrong? Since you seem intent on Congressional oversight how do you feel about the previous Administrations refusal to even name who was on Cheney's energy taskforce?

^^^ What the hell are you babbling about now?

You asked me where I got the info on White House payroll, and I provided it.

Jesus Christ, stick to the topic. :(

Originally Posted by highsea

It's a hodge-podge. Some czars report directly to Obama, some report to cabinet officers. A few are listed on the White House budget, most are not. A handful were created by the Congress- those get confirmed by the Senate. These are all listed on the WH budget. The rest aren't.

I can name you at least dozen czars that you can't find on any White House budget report.

It's a very opaque situation, power of the czars isn't defined in any public way, and no one really knows where the funding all comes from, or how much they are paid.
The more czars you have, the more dilute the cabinet officials are, and the less the Congress knows about who's doing what.

Certainly the President needs advisors, which is why the "advice and consent" role was given to the Senate in the Constitution.

We have both- a bloated inefficient and wasteful gov't, with many areas of the executive branch that are unnacountable and controlled by powerful positions that lack oversight.

You seemed concerned about a lack of accountability and the abuse of power by the executive branch. GN was even more so.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You seemed concerned about a lack of accountability and the abuse of power by the executive branch. GN was even more so.

I was responding to Astralis's comment on where the czar pay came from, and how the number of czars affected their relative power.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I am concerned about lack of accountability and transparency in Gov't. It becomes even more of a concern when we have an administration hell bent on a massive expansion of the Federal Gov't. I was opposed to the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, and said so at the time.

But I didn't see any Bush budgets that tripled the National debt, or laid out trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.

I don't recall the Bush administration seizing control of the insurance, banking, mortgage, health care, and auto manufacturing sectors of the economy.

I don't recall any Bush "czars" promoting homosexuality in elementary schools, or firing CEO's or setting pay scales.

I believe in limited Federal Gov't as enumerated by the United States Constitution.

I think taxes are better spent the closer they are to where they were collected, and those taxes collected by the Federal Gov't should be levied equally among the States.

I don't think the Federal Gov't should be duplicating State Gov't functions.

I think the US Congress should protect and defend the Constitution. I don't think they should be allowed to abrogate their duties as defined by the Constitution.

I think the entire Code of Federal Regulations, all 50,000 pages of them are unconstitutional as a violation of the non-delegation clause. The Executive branch is not the lawmaking branch of our Gov't.

And I'm sick of hearing Obama whining every time he gives a speech. "Boo hoo, I inherited such a mess" blah blah blah. Grow up.