That's beside the point. Chances are you are saved more than the cost.

It directly addresses the notion posed by the commenter I was replying to with regard to the origin of banking regulations.

We have, in no particular order:

- The FDIC

- The SEC

- The Federal Reserve Board

- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Those agencies regulate banking. Then we can go further and we have:

- The National Credit Union Organization

- The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)

- The Financial Insurance Office (part of Treasury)

- The Office of Foreign Assets Control

- The Securities Investor Protection Corp.

- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission

- EBISA, ERISA, PBGC for retirement plans...

And we need an additional agency because...?

We don't need the CFPB.

Quick question... Which one of those do I contact when my credit card company is trying to hold me responsible for fraudulent charges on my credit card?

Until someone can answer me that question with a link to a form I can fill out with an agency that has a track record of actually fixing these problems, you've made no progress on convincing me we don't need the CFPB.

What makes you think consolidating the same services under fewer names makes it better? Isn't the system simpler with clearly marked out territories?

It's not obvious to me that some other agency will pick up the same responsibilities. If it happens without a budget change elsewhere then obviously DOGE would be right in cutting this particular agency.