That's the point: We didn't need to, because they had a process they followed and it worked. It was probably fairly bureaucratic, which is reasonable when we're talking about trillions of dollars. Treasury moves slowly but they do move in the right direction - TreasuryDirect was kinda early and had an absolute klunker of an interface, but it's been improved a bit over time and is now usable if still chonky. Federal and treasury-mediated transfers went through. People's confidential payment information wasn't disclosed. That's kind of what I and most others ask of the treasury -- even if I occasionally took to social media to scream about their terrible password entry interface and the annoyance of dealing with medallion guarantees. :-) And they got on FedNow pretty quickly once it rolled out, though of course I wish either the treasury or the fed had provided an instant payments system like a decade earlier. (But that's on the fed.)
But I'm OK with the idea that change speed is somewhat inversely proportional to value at risk. Might be better if it was 1/log(value).
Their nicknames were “I have been through thorough background checks and I am a professional who runs my changes through review and testing before they eventually get deployed.”
Seriously, do you know who does repairs on the sewer lines where you live? No. Does that mean you’re so oblivious that you wouldn’t be concerned by seeing half a dozen young men without any safety gear or official logos digging a six foot trench across the road outside your house?
That's not how it works in the U.S. If an executive branch department was created by the legislature, it is up to the legislature whether or not it exists, not the executive. If the legislature has passed laws regarding how its resources are to be used, its employees treated, the executive is not free to disregard those laws.
The legislature is the source of laws in the U.S., not the executive. The irony is that the Republicans control the legislature as well. They could pass laws to achieve what Musk wants. It would be slow, but it would be legal.
A coup is seizing power outside the legal mechanism for doing so.
dang|1 year ago
trimethylpurine|1 year ago
[deleted]
bende511|1 year ago
[deleted]
tayo42|1 year ago
[deleted]
yostrovs|1 year ago
dgacmu|1 year ago
But I'm OK with the idea that change speed is somewhat inversely proportional to value at risk. Might be better if it was 1/log(value).
throw0101c|1 year ago
Why should anyone have to care about the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service?
Are people aware of of how the Internet works? Are people aware of how water and sewage work? The electrical grid?
If someone who just graduated high school started flipping breakers at a substation would people think that's a good idea?
lazyasciiart|1 year ago
Seriously, do you know who does repairs on the sewer lines where you live? No. Does that mean you’re so oblivious that you wouldn’t be concerned by seeing half a dozen young men without any safety gear or official logos digging a six foot trench across the road outside your house?
bende511|1 year ago
[deleted]
33MHz-i486|1 year ago
dang|1 year ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
DFHippie|1 year ago
That's not how it works in the U.S. If an executive branch department was created by the legislature, it is up to the legislature whether or not it exists, not the executive. If the legislature has passed laws regarding how its resources are to be used, its employees treated, the executive is not free to disregard those laws.
The legislature is the source of laws in the U.S., not the executive. The irony is that the Republicans control the legislature as well. They could pass laws to achieve what Musk wants. It would be slow, but it would be legal.
A coup is seizing power outside the legal mechanism for doing so.
bende511|1 year ago