While his words may have been extremely ill chosen, think about it for a moment.
Isn’t in the job of government to serve us? Are you really suggesting that government shouldn’t serve us? Aren’t even regulatory actions a form of service? The police are the ultimate regulatory body in a civilian-led country - but they serve us, do they not? They regulate my behaviour, and just this year gave me a crisp new speeding ticket to prove it, but isn’t enforcement of law a service to me in many different ways? Gosh, I think so.
Indeed, the notion that regulations exist to HELP the people they work with is a very common one, and it’s one that government departments themselves encourage, because it tends to result in more cooperation from the people they’re enforcing regulations upon.
Perhaps because I work a lot with government regulatory agencies, I see no conflict between regulation and service. Regulation IS a service, and if the regulated party approaches it with the right attitude, they can derive benefits from regulation. Telling them “we’re here to serve you” certainly can help foster that attitude.
Wait. We believe in 'government of the people, by the people, for the people," right? So a banking regulator is supposed to governor of the banks, be directed by the banks, for the sake of the banks. It’s from the same basic premise. If you don’t believe in that, what does that imply about democracy? Why is self-rule okay for the general populace (or the majority of that populace) & not okay for a given sector?
This is the kind of gotcha political jive that people highmindedly claim to dislike but really only dislike when it’s about their own guys. Here’s the fuller quote from what appears to be the original source
So the “later clarification” makes it all copacetic then?
Can we call that a walkback, or would that be unfair to the Republican’s “sensitive nature”?
Perhaps someone needs to ram a red hot poker up the guy’s ass, and then explain later that it was supposed to just be a dick?
That’d be OK too, right?
There’s no point getting all persnickety over words and deeds, is there? Having looked in Bacchus’ eyes, we all Know that his heart is in the right place with regard to America, don’t we?
Well, that was an effective job of snipping one line out of my post and ignoring the actual thrust of it. Well done.
Again; what, taken literally, is wrong with his statement? It’s the job of the government - including the regulatory parts - to serve its constitutents, which, whether you like it or not, includes business, big and small. Regulation and service are not mutually exclusive.
Drunks, drug dealers, wifebeaters and killers aren’t the constituency of the local cop shop?
That’s a radical notion there, Brainglutton!
Why if the police commissioner said publicly that his job was to serve hookers, I’m sure you’d be cheering, right along with RickJay.
So if a congressman announced that the job of the Drug Enforcement Agency was to serve drug dealers, it would be okay? Because some of his constituents are drug dealers who would best be served if the DEA would agree to look the other way while they were conducting their business.
Cooperative collaboration between government regulators and the business involved seem to be the norm.
The animal feed manufacturer I used to work for also made medicated feed, which meant that we were to be inspected by the Dept of Agriculture, and because of the drugs, by the FDA. I was responsible for the medicated feed program and developed it over the course of about 20 years.
At no time dring those 20 years did an inspector ever show up that I didn’t know was coming. The inspector would usually call me a week in advance and let me know it was time for our inspection and would Tuesday be Ok? We would review procedures and he might suggest a change which I would now include as part of the program.
He got something to document and I got something to respond to, we both had done our jobs. This is my somewhat limited experience with government oversight but I wouldn’t really call it regulating or even oversight. I call it making sure you have paperwork that makes it look like you are doing something when you really aren’t.
But what if you had been doing something egregiously and unambiguously wrong? I’m guessing the situation would have become less cooperative and more of an enforcement action.
It can be the same in aviation at times. Of course, there are also times where the FAA doesn’t have the expertise to adequately supervise. I’ve seen both situations.
If the banks put the needs of their customers ahead of their own, then we wouldn’t need to regulate them. But they don’t. Banks, and everyone else, are expected to act in their own self interest. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when our interests conflict and regulation is needed, it should be on behalf of us, the citizens, and not us, the banks.
You know, while Bachus no doubt deserves to be lambasted for a number of things, this Bidenesque faux pas is not IMO among them. He emitted a sound bite that came across as a parody of Republican values, then quickly issued a clarification of what he meant.
And on reviewing his Wikipedia biography, I’m inclined to believe him, at least as far as I believe any political figure’s public utterances.
Old-boy White Southern Establishment? Yeah, he’s that. Business friendly? Yeah, that too. Mindless populist pseudo-libertarian Tea Party type? Nope, that doesn’t fit.
He’s supported a few bipartisan measures, like TARP. He was quick to condemn Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Tea Party types, as harming Republican chances to win a Senate majority. He got a lot of grief from fellow Republicans for being publicly critical of St. Sarah of Wasilla and her cohorts.
If we can mock the Republican stance as “Let’s turn our backs on the private sector, and let the market sort out who survives,” we could equally well caricature the Democratic stance as “If it moves, regulate it.” And what it seems he tried to express was, Government regulation of a sector of the economy is for the long-term health of that sector of the economy. Regulation is needed, micromanagement by government bureaucracy is not.
I may very well disagree with how much regulation he thinks is appropriate. But I see a big difference between his stance and the typical Teabagger ant-gummint demagoguery. And I’m not yet ready to condemn Bachus for a single faux pas.
That depends a lot on whether he made the statement and only took it back after public reaction, or immediately. In this case, he appears to have clarified his remarks at the time.
No. He did not say “subservient”. His remark was in the context of being “main street versus wall street”. And his clarification.
