I would argue the old philosophical argument at play here is who polices the police? We have seen in recent years a growing skepticism towards local government, specifically local police forces. What makes local government ripe for corruption and abuse but simultaneously makes federal government immune from the same vices and corruptions? If corruption is possible at the local level, then it is possible at the federal level. We know people who don't want to be held accountable kick and scream the loudest when they are held accountable. All of these shutdowns and audits could be a good thing. It could be a purifying thing for the federal government. It also could be a nothing burger, which could increase our confidence in the federal government. We should just let these things play out and see what comes of them.
What you are saying is not wrong, but it is too simplistic to just leave it there. I mean, if you follow that logic, who is the police of the police of the police of the police? I mean, at some point you have to trust SOMEONE or society breaks apart. We are all also fully aware of many examples of unscrupulous business practices in the private sector. No one questions that businesses, especially banks, will do whatever possible to make money. That is not up for debate. And in some cases, the actions of the broader private sector have cost the taxpayers literally trillions of dollars over the years. Yet for some reason, people, like yourself, tend to trust private business more than you trust the government. And this is really the head-scratcher to me. The government at least has a mantra, a stated goal, a mission of serving the people. Even if only some of the people working in government are following that mission, it's probably better, on the average, than what people are doing in the business sector, where in the vast majority of cases the ONLY thing that matters is making money.
And that’s a clear difference between many dems and cons. You really seem to trust the govt and invite it to grow. While people like myself just scratch my head.
when maga wonders why they are referred to as blindly following Trump - just look at this post. It’s actually discouraging.
I am not completely anti-regulation. I think regulation can be a good thing to make sure people play fair. However, I think regulators being regulated is not necessarily a bad thing if you really believe in regulation. The whole entire idea with separation of powers and checks and balances is everyone is accountable to someone else. If you believe in the Constitution, there are mechanisms for almost everyone to be held accountable. The SCOTUS and the legislature have powers too. They can flex those powers when needed to hold the POTUS and his appointees accountable. Now, if you don't believe that is sufficient, then maybe you don't believe in Constitutional democracy anymore.
But the legislature can't do that if the POTUS has one of the richest men in the world threatening them with funding primary challengers if they do anything the POTUS disagrees with. Who is regulating the POTUS right now? Only the courts, and the POTUS has been questioning whether they should even do that... So, fine - you want to regulate the regulators? Who the hell is regulating the executive right now? The media would serve as one arm of this as an informal regulator - but many don't trust the media either, partly because the POTUS has been attacking the media as liars for almost 10 years now, and many have chosen to believe him. So you're essentially putting your trust in two people - Trump and Musk, two billionaires, over the entire government bureaucracy. Which that is your choice, ultimately, in the absence of definitive proof, I guess it becomes a choice really. I just don't know why people would just to trust two openly self-interested billionaires.
Oh, because they're so separate from government. LOL! Where do you think every financial advisor in Washington comes from? As they say, you work for Goldman Sachs then you go do the work for Goldman Sachs. Former SOT's Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner (Rubin's right-hand man under Clinton) concur.
Barney Frank had a massive hand in creating the housing collapse. Why would you trust him to solve the issue. Adequate oversight of the banks doesn’t require something with tentacles as long and strong as Dodd-Frank and the CFPB.
This should be no surprise to anyone. Trump ran on a campaign of complete deregulation, which is why he was supported by big business. Deregulation will substantially reduce costs and increase products. Obviously, the downside is the exposure of consumer fraud, and the checks against over-extension of lending, will be gone. Well only if there’s a problem when it’s too late. So, hopefully we never know.
I also don't want to speak for all liberals, but I think many of us, especially in the middle and upper-middle class, look at government and see hope. And in a nutshell, that hope is that the worst parts of capitalism can be held in check so that we can all benefit from the wealth, creativity and ingenuity a free market inspires and perpetuates.
He posts that as if it is some patently logical solution when, in fact, it's just another can of worms to be opened. So, what about regulating the regulators who regulate the regulators? If you have a problem with that "maybe you have a problem with democracy." Did it sound as pithy when I wrote it? Only words I can come up with are, "Mount Up!!!"
