We will be fine without them.
Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency.
We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised.
while we are discussing DEA, I wanted to highlight CIA whistleblower Kiriakou's interview ( https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 )
Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran).
and DEA even shut down investigation by the CIA.
Very big questions are starting to arise
1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process
2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Automation fails. A lot. There will always be a need for humans to address at least some of these cases.
> 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Adding to the list of things the government doesn't do (removal of the CFPB without an alternative) doesn't achieve this.
The FTC still directs consumers to the CFPB. Might want to call Russ and let him know.
Just fire 90% of these thousands of lawyers with 500k salaries and replace remaining 10% with engineers who will create a system on autopilot.
There is really no valid argument against materially improving government efficiency
and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed.
Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully.
The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.
Lies.
> 2. Being under the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the government despite being ostensibly so. Accountability is thus questionable at best.
FUD.
> 3. Small(er) government(?) is good government. Leaner budget is better budget. Less bureaucracy is good bureaucracy.
Nonsensical, utopian libertarianism talking points that don't take into consideration specifics, just blanket judgements without evidence or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...
>The agency was originally proposed in 2007 by Elizabeth Warren while she was a law professor. The CFPB's creation was authorized by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, whose passage in 2010 was a legislative response to the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great Recession and is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve.
>The CFPB formally began operation on July 21, 2011.
In Trump's immortal word: Wrong.
>FUD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Accountability
>Nonsensical, utopian libertarianism talking points that don't take into consideration specifics, just blanket judgements without evidence or understanding.
Honestly Margaret, I don't give a damn.
People here are trying to convince me that it's perfectly fine to have wanton waste and fraud and we should accept it because it's such a Miniscule(tm) part of the budget. Miniscule(tm) as in millions and billions of dollars. Tax dollars. I guess a multi millionaire or even a billionaire by modern standards is a pauper today, okay.
And they say that for what? Because they want to scream Orange Man and Rocket Man X are bad.
What the hell is wrong with you people. Seriously and sincerely. With how much y'all hate Trump I thought we at least shared a common hatred for fraud.
The mental gymnastics many of the people here go through to justify their screeching is frankly appalling[1][2][3].
Hate Trump and Musk if you want because that's frankly none of my business, but if you are serious about accepting wanton waste and especially fraud of people's tax dollars I will not have any respect for you and your lack of civility.
If you are serious that millions and billions of dollars is an insignificant sum of money, I will question your grasp upon common sense and reality.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43004138
2. Being under the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the government despite being ostensibly so. Accountability is thus questionable at best.
3. Small(er) government(?) is good government. Leaner budget is better budget. Less bureaucracy is good bureaucracy.