5 ms·

Tax dollars hard at "work" at "protecting" consumers.

lostcolony 9y ago
Consider the administration, and the fact the GOP has hated this bureau since it's inception, promising to curtail it. This is hardly evidence that governmental consumer protection can't work, just evidence that the GOP has delivered on its promise to stop government from trying.
- santoriv 9y ago
  Indeed. Run on a platform saying that government doesn't work, and once in office govern in a way that proves the premise! Brilliant.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    ^^ P.J. O'Rourke's observation
- geofft 9y ago
  The purpose of all this "deep state" talk is to cast doubt on the idea that certain government policies should not change at each administration's whims, and there should be a semblance of continuity of both policy and personnel across presidential elections. Now that anyone who's been working for the government since before 2017 is being demonized as the "deep state," it opens the door to politicize every single action from every single agency. If a Democratic president gets elected in 2020, it'll be interesting to watch whether this standard gets upheld. (Most likely the Republicans will complain about how the Democrats are attacking loyal Americans working hard for their government, and the Democrats will do their usual thing of feeling bad and giving in.)
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Politics is a pendulum. It has always swung back and forth every few year. But now it's swinging much farther and much heavier, and it's making the whole system unstable. Democrats are unlikely to give in again. Giving in is what drive away their base cost them the election in 2016. If they do it again in 2020, the party is dead.
    - zero_intp 9y ago
      Good luck with that, the Democratic party has not suddenly grown a spine.
      - aerotwelve 9y ago
        Please vote in your local Democratic caucus/primary and force them to grow a spine. We need your help to make it happen.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Of course agencies should follow the administration's whims, that's the administration's job. If executive behavior should be constrained by previous administration's decisions, then Congress or if necessary a Constitutional convention should make a law to establish that. If our country is so divided that we can't maintain basic consistency across changing administrations, then we don't deserve to be a country anymore, and we should split into 2.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      This was largely by unspoken agreement up to now, because it was understood that certain things -had- to be maintained. Even if not as a promise to the american people (they did, after all, vote the prior pack of people in, so what those people set in motion is just as valid as anything you want to do now), as a promise to the world. Imagine the state of diplomacy if any agreement could be thrown out on a whim by a newly elected president? That's effectively what we're seeing now, and even if you disagree with the agreements, and feel they never should have been made, the tarnishing of our diplomatic status and general trustworthiness on the world stage is not easily dismissed.
      - arca_vorago 9y ago
        Sorry but this is a misunderstanding of how things work. Constitutionally it is congresses job to negotiate and enact treaties, though there was that hubbub about passing fast_track which I strongly disagreed with. GP is talking about agencies which as part of the executive fall under POTUS, while treaties are treated as on equal footing with the constitution. Eg once enacted it's the executives job to enforce.
        lostcolony 9y ago
        And the executive office is not enforcing them, or otherwise maintaining agreements we entered into on the international stage. For instance, the state department still has not delivered its Climate Action Report to the United Nations, which was supposed to be delivered by Jan 1st, as we're a part of the UNFCCC. An unenforced, unmaintained agreement is the same as pulling us out, and it erodes trust in the United States on the international stage. Yes, the OP was talking about domestic policies; I was saying that historically some of those things would still be maintained, rather than introduce complete instability with every administration, and that this administration has broken that precedent both on the domestic and the international front.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
devonkim 9y ago
Given the trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse prevalent for decades in DoD projects all with the intent to “protect the American people and soldiers”, surely a few million for protecting consumers is pretty decent value even if it’s nowhere near as effective as our defense / offense department by now?
bzbarsky 9y ago
Amusingly, the other comments in this thread point out that the last budget request for this agency was for $0. So it's more like not-tax-dollars not being at work.
a3n 9y ago
"Big dollar reapers good, small dollar earners bad."
imglorp 9y ago
We've arrived at Orwell's doublespeak. Consumer financial protection is now in charge of making sure corporations can harm consumers without obstacle.

Consider the administration, and the fact the GOP has hated this bureau since it's inception, promising to curtail it. This is hardly evidence that governmental consumer protection can't work, just evidence that the GOP has delivered on its promise to stop government from trying.

santoriv 9y ago
Indeed. Run on a platform saying that government doesn't work, and once in office govern in a way that proves the premise! Brilliant.
- dhimes 9y ago
  ^^ P.J. O'Rourke's observation
geofft 9y ago
The purpose of all this "deep state" talk is to cast doubt on the idea that certain government policies should not change at each administration's whims, and there should be a semblance of continuity of both policy and personnel across presidential elections. Now that anyone who's been working for the government since before 2017 is being demonized as the "deep state," it opens the door to politicize every single action from every single agency. If a Democratic president gets elected in 2020, it'll be interesting to watch whether this standard gets upheld. (Most likely the Republicans will complain about how the Democrats are attacking loyal Americans working hard for their government, and the Democrats will do their usual thing of feeling bad and giving in.)
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Politics is a pendulum. It has always swung back and forth every few year. But now it's swinging much farther and much heavier, and it's making the whole system unstable. Democrats are unlikely to give in again. Giving in is what drive away their base cost them the election in 2016. If they do it again in 2020, the party is dead.
  - zero_intp 9y ago
    Good luck with that, the Democratic party has not suddenly grown a spine.
    - aerotwelve 9y ago
      Please vote in your local Democratic caucus/primary and force them to grow a spine. We need your help to make it happen.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Of course agencies should follow the administration's whims, that's the administration's job. If executive behavior should be constrained by previous administration's decisions, then Congress or if necessary a Constitutional convention should make a law to establish that. If our country is so divided that we can't maintain basic consistency across changing administrations, then we don't deserve to be a country anymore, and we should split into 2.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    This was largely by unspoken agreement up to now, because it was understood that certain things -had- to be maintained. Even if not as a promise to the american people (they did, after all, vote the prior pack of people in, so what those people set in motion is just as valid as anything you want to do now), as a promise to the world. Imagine the state of diplomacy if any agreement could be thrown out on a whim by a newly elected president? That's effectively what we're seeing now, and even if you disagree with the agreements, and feel they never should have been made, the tarnishing of our diplomatic status and general trustworthiness on the world stage is not easily dismissed.
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      Sorry but this is a misunderstanding of how things work. Constitutionally it is congresses job to negotiate and enact treaties, though there was that hubbub about passing fast_track which I strongly disagreed with. GP is talking about agencies which as part of the executive fall under POTUS, while treaties are treated as on equal footing with the constitution. Eg once enacted it's the executives job to enforce.
      - lostcolony 9y ago
        And the executive office is not enforcing them, or otherwise maintaining agreements we entered into on the international stage. For instance, the state department still has not delivered its Climate Action Report to the United Nations, which was supposed to be delivered by Jan 1st, as we're a part of the UNFCCC. An unenforced, unmaintained agreement is the same as pulling us out, and it erodes trust in the United States on the international stage. Yes, the OP was talking about domestic policies; I was saying that historically some of those things would still be maintained, rather than introduce complete instability with every administration, and that this administration has broken that precedent both on the domestic and the international front.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

devonkim 9y ago

Given the trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse prevalent for decades in DoD projects all with the intent to “protect the American people and soldiers”, surely a few million for protecting consumers is pretty decent value even if it’s nowhere near as effective as our defense / offense department by now?

bzbarsky 9y ago

Amusingly, the other comments in this thread point out that the last budget request for this agency was for $0. So it's more like not-tax-dollars not being at work.

a3n 9y ago

"Big dollar reapers good, small dollar earners bad."

imglorp 9y ago

We've arrived at Orwell's doublespeak. Consumer financial protection is now in charge of making sure corporations can harm consumers without obstacle.