No Government Shutdown: $38 Billion in cuts.

[mildawg]

LOL, dumbass.

Have you read the Constitution?

Article 2, section 2, clause 2.

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I'm pretty sure lildildo can't read.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I agree with Obama. The congress does not have the power to dictate what the President does with his staff of political appointees.

Teatech/littlelibido, there is no way in he$$ you're a TECH grad. What a moron!

[genpop]

Teatech/littlelibido, there is no way in he$$ you're a TECH grad. What a moron!

This is the part that Guiss forgot. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

In contrast, members of the White House staff are appointed by the president without Senate confirmation (PA). They are legally authorized only to advise the president; they cannot make authoritative decisions for the government of the United States.


Czars are no different than David Plouffe or any other White House advisor.

[Guisslapp]

This is the part that Guiss forgot. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

In contrast, members of the White House staff are appointed by the president without Senate confirmation (PA). They are legally authorized only to advise the president; they cannot make authoritative decisions for the government of the United States.


Czars are no different than David Plouffe or any other White House advisor.

That is not what the Constitution says. Furthermore, the problem with Obama's czars is that he has delegated way too much authority to these czars. It reduces accountability and is contrary to the principles of separation of powers and checks in balances that was so carefully instilled in the Constitution.

[genpop]

That is not what the Constitution says. Furthermore, the problem with Obama's czars is that

he has delegated way too much authority to these czars.

It reduces accountability and is contrary to the principles of separation of powers and checks in balances that was so carefully instilled in the Constitution.

hate being wrong dont ya? That is a matter of YOUR opinion. No one elected you so only you care about your opinion.

[Guisslapp]

hate being wrong dont ya? That is a matter of YOUR opinion. No one elected you so only you care about your opinion.

I am just stating facts buddy. Read the Constitution. It doesn't support your opinion or what Obama has done.

[genpop]

I am just stating facts buddy. Read the Constitution. It doesn't support your opinion or what Obama has done.

Sure you are, but your fact aren't relevant to his so called "czars" which is only a media term. These people are simply advisors with no authorative power thus no senate confirmation is required. Congress isn't going to give up power to a President even if the President is a member of their own party. If the czars needed senate confirmation, why werent they confirmed to begin with? You teapublicans are good at twisting things to fit your agenda.

[Guisslapp]

Congress isn't going to give up power to a President even if the President is a member of their own party.

You entirely missed the point. This is not about Congress giving up power to the President. It is about the President denying Congress one of its powers, and the President delegating some of his power to someone who is neither elected nor confirmed by the Constitutional process.

[Guisslapp]

If the czars needed senate confirmation, why werent they confirmed to begin with?

Because the President, like other presidents, violated the Constitution. He took an oath of office and violated it. There is nothing to stop him from doing it.

You teapublicans are good at twisting things to fit your agenda.

I am not a Republican.

[genpop]

You entirely missed the point. This is not about Congress giving up power to the President. It is about the President denying Congress one of its powers,

and the President delegating some of his power to someone who is neither elected nor confirmed by the Constitutional process

.

Really? And what kind of power does a "czar" have? Do you really need to be confirmed by the Senate to "talk" to the President? In that case, Michelle Obama needs to be confirmed too.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Cutting home budget expenses.
WE HOPE YOU WILL PARTICIPATE AND DO
YOUR PART

The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

We're so impressed by this sacrifice that we have decided to do the same
thing with our personal budget. We spend about $4000 a month on groceries,
household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc, but it's time to get out the
budget cutting axe, go through our expenses, and cut back.

We're going to cut our spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of our
total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $4000 a
month; were going to have to cut that number by twelve cents. Yes, we're
going to have to get by with $3,999.88, but that's what sacrifice is all
about. We'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.

(Did the president actually think no one would do the math? Or does he think so little of his uneducated voter base that he didn't care what a load of crap this is
---as if the rest of America didn't already know)

[hoppinmad]

Cutting home budget expenses.
WE HOPE YOU WILL PARTICIPATE AND DO
YOUR PART

The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

We're so impressed by this sacrifice that we have decided to do the same
thing with our personal budget. We spend about $4000 a month on groceries,
household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc, but it's time to get out the
budget cutting axe, go through our expenses, and cut back.

We're going to cut our spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of our
total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $4000 a
month; were going to have to cut that number by twelve cents. Yes, we're
going to have to get by with $3,999.88, but that's what sacrifice is all
about. We'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.

(Did the president actually think no one would do the math? Or does he think so little of his uneducated voter base that he didn't care what a load of crap this is
---as if the rest of America didn't already know)

Yes, obammer knows his constituents only have ten fingers and ten toes.

[JuBru]

As good a place to put it as any.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...cil-homes.html

I guess since British are doing this, Obama and Co have their excuse to not do it too.

[T_Won]

As good a place to put it as any.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...cil-homes.html

I guess since British are doing this, Obama and Co have their excuse to not do it too.

"Social housing." Do we have that here yet?

[JuBru]

"Social housing." Do we have that here yet?

Yes just goes by a different name.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_..._United_States