Replies to post #709955 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Louie_Louie]

We'd be released years ago if the NWS never was created....guess who did that?

[Donotunderstand]

I separate FNMA from your comment - first

I suggest that D would do more with parts of the GOV -
I suggest that R would do less with parts of the GOV other than maybe CIA and Pentagon (and farm subsidies galore !!)

How is either avenue more wrong the other? Doing more or Doing less - is still DOING with intent and vision. Just different directions like a right turn and left turn - both are turns

Doing less on purpose - say less to protect our air and water s a policy and R uses agencies that way

Not sure how D and R differ in their view of what an agency can rule - just in direction. Using the EPA to allow oil drilling (done by DJT) is as much a political expansion - just in reverse. (Even if done in a way the courts keep overturning it for lack of following each step in a neutral bi partisan laid out process)

Re FNMA

I understand the desire to remove a key agency from arbitrary POTUS action,

That is what was done

It was deemed (always was) unconstitutional
But that decision came from a SCOTUS whose other parts of their decision you and I hate and are sure are ignorant if not evil. So you take one side and forget what else they ruled?

The right way to protect an agency - good or bad but constitutional - is to appoint an advisory or control board over that agency. Where there is such - it is constitutional to prevent POTUS unilaterally firing someone

There are IMO pros and cons to allowing ANY POTUS to fire anyone at any time they simply want to do so

It can be great
It can be insanely horrible
Thus the buffer of a committee of experts or advisors or rulers is the answer we have used as a nation for many decades