[dvtrn]

I couldn’t more strongly disagree with that take. Simply not knowing how to address a problem-as an individual-that has been articulated as one in need of solutions is emphatically not the equivalent of taking the position that nothing be done at all or that involved parties abdicate the search for said solutions.

That’s terrible form. I’m sorry. No.

But to your point yes I did propose a similarly frameworked agency like the CFPB, but I’ll also offer that in another comment I had my mind changed on the affair after further discussion with another commenter here about policies already established and powers delegated to already existing Federal agencies.

[moorhosj]

In reality, we can never know the full impacts of new legislation until it's released into the wild. You said yourself that "legislate first, fix later" makes you incredulous because you feel it is never fixed later.

I am suggesting that the perfect bill which requires no future fixes is non-existent. Thus, advocating for this solution is the equivalent of advocating for nothing. Just as building a product and showing it to nobody is functionally the same as not building a product from the rest-of-the-world's perspective.

[dvtrn]

You said yourself that "legislate first, fix later" makes you incredulous because you feel it is never fixed later.

Yes. But again, I've already conceded and abandoned this argument after being shown what I thought was good, well crafted policy with definitions, provisions and executions that I am willing to support in the context of this discussion. I happen to believe that all other things being established, context is important. Therefore I don't see the point in trying to refute your assertion of what I've said there, I did take that position, but I've since abandoned it, and conceded the point to a much better position than the one I had previously, therefore what I said earlier about "legislate first, fix later" holds no further relevance to this debate on policy, at least not IMO[1]

I am suggesting that the perfect bill which requires no future fixes is non-existent. Thus, advocating for this solution is the equivalent of advocating for nothing.

You still seem to be arguing against a position of "pass a perfect bill or no bill at all" that no one has made, and has not presented itself in the discussion, so to that note I'm not really sure how to respond.

[1] caveat lector: That being said, I do have strong opinions at large about incrementalism in policy design, but that's for another time and probably another forum.