DOGE
- Thread starter acesfull86
- Start date
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/12/donald-trump-presidency-progressives/
And about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, without which America prospered during its first 235 years: Is it really wrong to favor extinction of this anti-constitutional contraption that can “declare,” without congressional guidance, what business practices are “abusive”? Unlike any entity created by Congress since 1789, the CFPB is untethered from oversight: Its funding, determined unilaterally by its director, comes not from Congress but from the Federal Reserve.
And about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, without which America prospered during its first 235 years: Is it really wrong to favor extinction of this anti-constitutional contraption that can “declare,” without congressional guidance, what business practices are “abusive”? Unlike any entity created by Congress since 1789, the CFPB is untethered from oversight: Its funding, determined unilaterally by its director, comes not from Congress but from the Federal Reserve.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Sounds like a question that maybe the Supreme Court might want to rule upon if it has not already done so.
Btw the Fed itself is not funded by Congressional appropriation. Maybe that should be examined as well. Wouldn't want an "untethered" Fed.
What's really cool about these past few weeks is that it is now possible to extinguish such agencies without congressional action.
Last edited by a moderator:
acesfull86
Well-known member
Don’t threaten me with a good time!!
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
laissez les bons temps roullez!
sturg33
I
how would we ever survive without an entity centrally controlling everything and devaluing our currency 98% since its exception
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Elon’s companies brought in about $8 million a day from the federal government in 2024… seems like a good chunk of funds to cut
That thread basically boils down to the Federalist guy taking a program and attaching his own guesses about what they were “actually” doing with it. And while I think it’s perfectly fair not to trust the US government to not do some shady **** under the guise of more noble pursuits, none of the insidious implications he’s predicting are backed up by any evidence. Also importantly, anybody who is using this to claim the US paid a news agency to do some social engineering is missing that it wasn’t the newsroom that was contracted, as noted by Davis here.
[tw]1890136285622452429[/tw]
Just a member of the federal government promoting a tweet that directly suggests users of his website can influence which government agencies get investigated, and presumably paying that user for the impressions generated by his tweet. Definitely no conflicts of interest here. Nope, none.
Just a member of the federal government promoting a tweet that directly suggests users of his website can influence which government agencies get investigated, and presumably paying that user for the impressions generated by his tweet. Definitely no conflicts of interest here. Nope, none.
It’s not meant to be a gotcha, it’s meant merely as a rebuttal to the claims like this:
[tw]1890182649974817070[/tw]
There is no evidence that shows Reuters was paid *for* large scale deception, and it’s shady to suggest a new organization looking into your official actions is doing so because they were paid to deceive the public.
You guys have the outrage over spending pretty well covered. It doesn’t change the fact that this is a conflict of interest.
Cool, Elon Musk still shouldn’t be actively promoting his website that he gets more actual US dollars for if he can increase traffic to that website while conducting this work.
This dude. lol
I’m not looking to change anything, I’m just looking for this unelected bureaucrat to stop enriching himself further in the process by suggesting his website that he profits from is where you can get the real truth about the government and where you can even maybe steer the government.