Billionaire businessman Marc Andreessen’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” is causing national debate about banking and government overreach. In the three-hour podcast, Andreessen alleged the Biden administration is using “debanking” tactics to target tech founders and business owners, striking a chord with anti-establishment voters.

🚨MUST WATCH: Marc Andreessen breaks down the entire process of debanking and how the Biden administration used raw administrative power to silence anyone they didn't like: Crypto, Guns, Weed, and "Politically Exposed People" aka right wing voices without due process. (FULL CLIP) pic.twitter.com/zwe4NNc26p

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 27, 2024

Public sentiment is moved by discussions of whether debanking is an existential threat to banking freedoms and the validity of Andreessen’s claims.

Andreessen’s Debanking Claims

“Debanking” refers to the government denying or restricting banking services for individuals or organizations, often for political, regulatory, or ideological reasons. Andreessen alleges more than 30 tech and crypto founders have been denied banking services by the Biden administration.

Andreessen likened the Biden DOJ’s actions to Obama’s “Operation Chokepoint,” a controversial 2013 program claiming to combat fraud by targeting banks and payment processors that provided services to high-risk industries like payday lenders, firearm sellers, and online gambling operators. Andreessen suggests these are politicized operations to expand financial control target political dissenters.

• Weaponized Regulation: Andreessen claims the government is using financial tools to suppress political opposition in emerging industries like cryptocurrency.
• Stifling Innovation: He cautions that overreach tactics will drive entrepreneurs out of the U.S., undermining America’s competitive edge.
• Historical Parallels: He compares current regulatory practices to past government overreach, like the Red Scare and Great Depression interventions.

Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB

Andreessen was also outspoken in criticizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its architect, Senator Elizabeth Warren. He frames the CFPB as emblematic of a persecutory government, saying its goal is to “terrorize financial institutions” using its extensive regulatory framework as a tool to bring free market innovation and wealth creation to heel.

Marc Andreesen on Elizabeth Warrens agency CFPB which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. This is going to be a 3 part thread. pic.twitter.com/M8lpCLxsk5

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) November 26, 2024

Elizabeth Warren’s Role

• Supporters, typically progressives, see Warren as a champion of consumer protection, emphasizing her success in holding financial institutions accountable.
• Critics say her own wealth undermines credibility, accusing her of targeting businesses to maintain and increase government economic control.
• Many view her policies as part of a progressive philosophy which promotes excessive regulation to restrict free-market dynamics.
• Andreessen also alleges that Warren uses the CFPB to target political opponents, debanking them for conservative political speech.

Liberal Pushback

• Warren supporters object to Andreessen’s claims, calling him a corrupt billionaire who feels he is exempt from justified regulatory enforcement and fairness.
• They fear Republican leadership could target the CFPB and destroy its ability to enforce consumer protections.
• There is particular concern that low-income households could disproportionately bear the brunt of regulation rollbacks, worsening financial inequality.

In general, conservatives view the CFPB as weaponized government agency, arguing it targets political opponents, businesses, and hampers innovation. Progressives are more likely to advocate for expanding its reach to combat corporate exploitation and ensure accountability.

Voter Group Sentiments

MIG Reports analysis shows a divided public response to Andreessen’s claims.

Conservatives and Libertarians

• 65% of discussions come from the right, who strongly oppose debanking practices.
• Critics see debanking as a politicized weapon for financial censorship.
• Concerns focus on the erosion of capitalism and free-market principles.

Moderate and Skeptic Views

• 30% of the discussion takes a neutral or skeptical stance, seeking more evidence to validate Andreessen’s allegations.
• This group emphasizes the need for balanced regulation over unverified claims of overreach.

Progressive Reactions

• Left-leaning voters say government actions and regulatory crackdown are necessary for market oversight and equity.
• Skepticism toward Andreessen’s perspective frames him as a selfish billionaire detached from systemic challenges.

Overall Reactions

• 74% of those discussing the interview express concerns about the long-term consequences of government financial interference.
• Fears that banks are “puppets of political agendas” undermine public confidence as people view gatekeeping access as tyrannical.
• Younger voters (18-34) express skepticism toward institutions and demand investigations into debanking practices.
• Small business owners fear economic instability and reduced access to financial services.

Predictive Analysis

As public discourse around debanking continues, expect the following trends:

• Increased Scrutiny: Calls for congressional hearings or investigations into banking practices targeting specific industries are likely to grow, especially from Republicans.
• Policy Proposals: Conservatives may push for legislation protecting access to financial services, framing it as a free-market issue.
• Polarized Narratives: Progressives will likely frame regulatory measures as critical, accusing conservatives of politicized actions in the other direction.

Recent news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could ban artificial food dyes sparks reactions from Americans. People worry about public health, political dynamics, and corporate and individual freedom.

Americans have diverse expectations and anxieties around food safety and the government’s regulatory role. Figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are increasing awareness and shaping the debate.

• 65% support the ban as a necessary step toward ensuring public health.
• 15% oppose, advocating for consumer choice and economic considerations.
• 20% are neutral, seeking clearer scientific evidence before forming an opinion.

Public Health Concerns

The most dominant theme in conversations reacting to a potential food dye ban is the role of public health. Most Americans emphasize the risks associated with artificial dyes, particularly their potential impact on children. They cite connections between artificial colors and health issues like hyperactivity and allergies. This advocacy aligns with broader consumer demand for transparency in food production, where the public expects more rigorous oversight from the FDA.

RFK Jr. Disrupts Public Health Debates

Many credit RFK Jr.’s presidential run and subsequent involvement in Trump’s incoming administration with bringing national attention to health issues. His vocal support for the ban resonates with those skeptical of corrupt and profit-seeing corporations.

RFK Jr. Acts as a bold advocate for consumer rights and an antidote to perceived corporate and governmental overreach. However, critics see his arguments as emblematic of conspiracy-laden rhetoric, warning against his influence on policy discussions.

• 50% view RFK Jr. positively, appreciating his advocacy for food safety.
• 30% approach his claims with skepticism, associating them with fringe narratives.
• 20% like his strategic ability to shape public opinion, even amid controversy.

RFK Jr.’s presence creates tension between institutional reform and distrust in governance. It also serves as a reminder of the fracturing partisan paradigm where disillusioned Democrats are joining MAGA and RINOs are partnering with Biden-Harris.

Balancing Regulation and Autonomy

Many Americans want balance between consumer autonomy and regulatory intervention. Those who support the ban see it as a moral imperative for safeguarding public health, but detractors say stringent regulatory measures infringe upon personal freedoms and market dynamics.

There are calls for compromise, with many advocating for educational initiatives over outright bans. They would prefer Americans make informed decision, forcing corporations to change their practices vie free market pressures rather than government mandates.

• 40% support regulation to uphold collective health.
• 35% advocate for corporate accountability without direct government action.
• 25% favor public education to empower consumers with informed choices.

The U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing an antitrust case against Google over its monopolistic presence in online search and advertising. This question of regulating major corporations generates heated public debate, with Americans expressing varied opinions on corporate power, government regulation, and market fairness.

Many view Google as a symbol of unchecked monopolistic power, accusing the tech giant of suppressing competition and consumer choice. This distrust stems from views of large corporations as exploitative, consolidating wealth and influence. For critics, the DOJ’s intervention is a necessary step toward accountability and leveling the playing field.

If you want to see the worst people in the world, read the comments on this article about Google shredding documents when under antitrust investigation.

"As someone who worked both at Google and on Wall Street, I find this article rather misleading." https://t.co/Nd8KGN6Wln pic.twitter.com/DTBZFDbFoX

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 20, 2024

Successfully Failed?

Skepticism about the government's ability to challenge Google effectively tempers public optimism. Many question whether the DOJ's efforts are genuine or politically motivated, voicing distrust of government intentions.

Some conservatives frame the case as overreach, claiming regulatory efforts might harm innovation and consumer benefits. Progressives are more likely to approve of the case as a critical stand against corporate greed. This ideological divide is not universal, however, as some conservatives concede the government has a role in preventing anticompetitive corporate behavior.

Lost in the Sauce

Most conversations question the nuances and complexities around antitrust regulation in the tech industry. Many Americans express confusion about what constitutes a monopoly in the modern digital landscape, acknowledging the challenge of balancing regulation with free market innovation.

Speculative discussions bring up potential unintended consequences, such as stifled technological advancement or restricted consumer choice. For some, the fear is not just about Google's dominance but about the potential for overly aggressive regulation to halt innovation.

Public sentiment includes hope, frustration, and skepticism. While many applaud the DOJ’s actions as long-overdue, others remain unconvinced. They are wary of Google’s influence and the government’s own corrupt practices which prevent meaningful change.

Trump’s 2024 presidential win is rapidly shifting expectations and realities across many sectors—including cryptocurrency. Crypto markets are surging to new highs, crossing $85,000 for the first time at the start of the week.

BREAKING: $85,000 #Bitcoin NEW ALL TIME HIGH 💥🚀 pic.twitter.com/ZkqhrytriY

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) November 11, 2024

Now, the crypto community is discussing the potential longer-term impacts of a second Trump administration, including market movements, regulation, and a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

You might want to buy Bitcoin. pic.twitter.com/mEjFNOACgm

— Altcoin Daily (@AltcoinDailyio) November 6, 2024

Crypto Voter Reactions

MIG Reports data shows:

• 70% want policies reducing government oversight in financial innovations.
• 65% of crypto voters are optimistic about a Trump administration’s impact on digital assets.
• 60% express hope for clearer regulations that protect rather than restrict crypto.
• 50% criticize legacy media’s portrayal of crypto and its neglect of blockchain’s benefits.
• 55% believe a Harris administration would have introduced unfavorable crypto policies.

Bitcoin Highs and Market Optimism

Almost immediately after Trump’s win, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies pumped, spurring discussions around:

• All-time highs: Bitcoin reached multiple new all-time highs following Trump’s victory, mirroring record gains in traditional stock markets.
• Increased trading volume: Trading volumes across major cryptocurrencies surged, reflecting renewed investor interest and perceived market stability.

This price movement isn’t the only reason to be bullish in crypto community—it’s symbolic of future positive movement. Many say the surge signals a political optimism toward decentralized finance, rejecting traditional financial systems which are over-regulated and restrictive.

Trump’s recent history of embracing crypto and making promises the community supports increases market optimism. Crypto voters who supported Trump are eager to see what his administration brings in the way of crypto regulation clarity and preventing a CBDC.

Enthusiasm and Policy Optimism

Beyond price pumps, the tone in the crypto community is optimistic about Trump’s impact on the industry.

Regulatory Relief

Many expect Trump to support less restrictive policies, anticipating an administration that leans into free-market principles. They want:

• Broader institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies.
• Greater regulatory clarity, particularly in navigating securities laws and tax regulations.
• Policy measures that prioritize financial innovation over governmental oversight.

Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Crypto voters are excited about Trump’s promise to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve as a safeguard against broader economic uncertainties. They view this as strengthening the U.S. economically and positioning it as a global crypto leader. Many are growing more positive about having J.D. Vance in the administration, considering his history in venture capital and crypto-related tech industries.

Global Relations and Market Confidence

The community voices excitement about Trump’s relationships with foreign leaders, especially with countries like Russia and China. They believe a Trump administration could reduce international tensions, creating a stable environment for investment that directly benefits cryptocurrency markets.

Contrast with Harris

Many are relieved to have avoided a Harris administration, which would likely have leaned toward regulatory intervention. Voters speculate a Harris presidency would have dampened crypto enthusiasm through heavier restrictions and oversight on digital assets.

Overall, crypto voters view Bitcoin’s post-election rise as a financial victory and part of a larger paradigm shift toward decentralized finance. They see crypto assets as increasingly vital in a landscape where traditional financial systems are perceived as vulnerable to external pressures.

Geopolitical and Economic Signals

A bull market in crypto and traditional markets is also influenced by anticipated changes in global dynamics. Investors view Trump’s assertive foreign policy as a stabilizing force—one that fosters economic confidence beyond U.S. borders.

Global Stability Expectations

Trump's win coincides with immediate signals of reduced international tensions. His approach to foreign policy, which prioritizes economic interests, offers a sense of reassurance regarding:

• Dissolving migrant caravans at the border, which voters see as moving toward controlling immigration.
• Potential peace overtures with Russia, China, and the Middle East, likely to stabilize global markets and benefit U.S.-aligned economic interests.

Shift in Energy and Trade Dynamics

Comments in the crypto community suggest energy self-sufficiency and the move away from reliance on adversarial energy sources (e.g., Russian gas) could reinforce economic independence—an essential condition for a flourishing crypto market reliant on stable, decentralized finance.

Projections for Crypto Under Trump

While immediate data points reveal optimism, crypto voters also discuss their future hopes for crypto under Trum:

• Long-term market growth: If Trump’s administration delivers on regulatory relief, crypto investors expect prolonged growth for digital assets, with Bitcoin likely testing new highs. Trump’s anti-establishment stance, combined with crypto’s decentralized appeal, stokes enthusiasm.
• Institutional adoption: With a stable political climate, more traditional financial institutions may enter the crypto space. Banks and investment firms could see Trump’s policies as a green light for incorporating digital assets into portfolios, leading to higher market penetration.
• Global integration: Trump’s foreign policy approach, if it promotes energy independence and stable trade relations, could make the U.S. an appealing hub for crypto. Increased international cooperation could facilitate smoother cross-border crypto transactions, enhancing the legitimacy of digital finance worldwide.

Energy prices continue to rise, and American families are struggling to afford basics like air conditioning and washing machines. In California, many are giving personal testimonies of monthly electric bills over $1,800. This, many voters say, is unsustainable and cripplingly expensive. Some share stories of turning off appliances to make ends meet.

this is my friend's bill in san francisco

this is what happens when you vote democrat https://t.co/nrRR24GOU2 pic.twitter.com/f3kqrJoxTK

— Jenny, Girl from 4th 🌍, 鄰白廢物 🧠 🪱 (@JennyChachan) October 22, 2024

Voters are frustrated with government failures and misguided energy policies. They say it’s time for a leader who prioritizes economic reality over environmental idealism. The Biden-Harris administration, and specifically VP Harris, are central to the debate. Voters in California and across the country blame her governance strategies for the cost of energy and overall living expenses.

PG&E and Sky-High Utility Costs

A major part of the discussion about energy costs is directed at Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and other utility companies. Voters across the political spectrum are dissatisfied with PG&E’s rate hikes, accusing the company of greed and poor management.

Voter Reactions

• 65% of the discussion is among middle-income voters who say rising utility prices directly impact their household budgets.
• 25% of the discussion is among lower-income voters who cannot afford energy bills and other necessities. Some say they must choose between food and power.
• Higher-income voters, while more tolerant of short-term price increases, also criticize the strain. They often defend renewable energy alternatives but still call for immediate economic intervention.

Americans urgently want regulatory reforms and corporate accountability. There's a very loud contingent demanding deregulation in the energy industry. Republican voters particularly argue that government intervention is exacerbating the situation, stifling competition, and allowing monopolies like PG&E to thrive without checks.

Political Ramifications from Energy

Voters are saying they will align themselves with candidates who promise economic relief and energy independence. The first Trump administration is often nostalgically cited as a time of lower energy prices and economic prosperity. Voters are frustrated by the lack of clear, actionable plans from Harris, saying they don’t trust her to “turn the page” on policy.

Voter Alignment

• Democratic Voters: 70% advocate for government intervention in energy pricing but express frustration at the inefficacy of current efforts.
• Republican Voters: 60% believe deregulation and free-market competition will lower energy prices, viewing Democratic policies as economically harmful.
• Independent Voters: 65% are anxious about rising energy costs and want pragmatic political solutions, regardless of party affiliation.

Environmental Idealism vs. Economic Realism

Criticism toward the Biden-Harris administration's energy policies often focuses on renewable energy. People criticize policies that prioritize environmentalism at the expense of practical economic concerns.

Voters say political leaders and those in urban areas are disconnected from the realities facing rural and middle-class Americans who depend on affordable energy.

Voter Sentiments

• Rural voters are angry at the focus on environmental idealism, which ignores the economic struggle of working families.
• Around 50% of voters discussing energy are skeptical of renewable energy transitions, particularly in states like California, where prices have skyrocketed.
• Critics use terms like “death cult” to describe the administration's environmentalist push for renewable energy.

Drill Baby, Drill

Within energy discussions, some voters criticize Harris’s flip-flopping stance on fracking. The lack of clarity around her advocacy or opposition generates skepticism and critique. Voters in areas with high energy costs are not convinced of her commitment to maintaining jobs in the fossil fuel industry.

For regions dependent on oil and gas, such as Pennsylvania, voters are keenly aware of the risks posed by restrictive policies. As some voters put it, “You will lose your jobs,” if fracking is banned. Others stress rising energy prices will worsen economic strain.

Voter Reactions

• 65% of comments from middle-income voters are concerned about the strain of utility bills on household finances.
• Voters view Harris’s inconsistent stance on fracking as a threat to jobs in oil and gas-rich regions, as well as the cost of energy overall.
• In oil-dependent regions, voters connect fracking bans with immediate economic hardships.

The economic implications of banning or restricting fracking are clear to voters who see fossil fuels as a bridge to energy independence. For them, Harris’s ambiguity on the issue is a slap in the face to their livelihoods and economic stability.

The public reaction to a chemical fire in Conyers, Georgia, reveals an overwhelming sense of frustration, fear, and distrust. Voter discussions center on health concerns, government failures, and the larger implications for environmental safety.  

MIG Reports data shows 60-65% of discussions express negative sentiment, driven by outrage at perceived regulatory negligence. People are in disbelief that such an incident could happen, emphasizing a lack of strict safety protocols and failures in government oversight. This frustration extends to local and federal bodies responsible for ensuring chemical facilities maintain safe operations. 

A look at the fire in Conyers just after 3PM. I-20 remains closed. https://t.co/jx18N8rJ9T pic.twitter.com/CaNVIPldpt

— Cody Alcorn (@CodyAlcorn) September 29, 2024

Sentiment Trends 

• Health concerns dominate, with many worried about long-term effects from chemical exposure, especially for children and vulnerable people. The release of toxic chemicals, like chlorine, heightens fears about air quality and safety. 
• Around 25-30% of comments call for stricter regulations and better oversight, with discussions often expanding to broader issues like pollution and climate change.  
• 10-25% of the discussion is neutral or positive, focusing on the need for transparency or praising emergency efforts.  

Distrust Dominates the Discourse 

There is a persistent undercurrent of public distrust regarding the Conyers chemical fire. This sentiment is evident in many discussions where individuals express skepticism about both governmental oversight and corporate accountability. The distrust is primarily directed at regulatory bodies, which many accuse of failing to enforce adequate safety measures. People feel the event was avoidable and attribute the incident to negligence and a lack of strict protocols for handling hazardous materials. 

Voter distrust extends beyond the immediate incident to an overarching feeling of disillusionment with how authorities manage public safety, particularly when it comes to industrial hazards. Many see the fire as part of a pattern of systemic government failures, with critiques of regulations and corporate interests that. Americans say both prioritize profit over safety.  

Distrust around official communications from local authorities about the fire’s severity fuels further concerns, with people doubting if they’re being told the full story. 

The community’s response is one that both seeks accountability for this specific event but also questions the overall reliability of institutions responsible for public safety. 

Boeing, a titan in the aerospace industry, finds itself in ongoing PR and legal battles. The recent departure of its defense chief and the new CEO shaking up the company’s top ranks come at a time when Boeing is already under immense pressure. Years of safety concerns, labor disputes, and questions about leadership have eroded public trust.

Leadership Instability and Strategic Direction

Boeing’s defense chief stepped down—a significant moment for the company. Leading one of Boeing’s most critical divisions, the defense chief was responsible for overseeing projects that are essential to both U.S. military capabilities and space exploration. The departure forces a reposition of the defense unit, which faces its own operational delays and controversies.

The new CEO Robert “Kelly” Ortberg’s decision to overhaul top leadership further signals Boeing’s internal dynamics in turmoil. While these changes could provide an opportunity for renewed focus, they also raise concerns about stability and continuity in a period where consistency is vital.

Investors and stakeholders are closely watching these moves, but there is skepticism about whether leadership changes alone can address deeper structural problems.

Boeing’s reputation has been marred by high-profile crises including:

• Multiple airplane failures and safety events
• The Starliner experiencing failures, leaving astronauts stuck in space
• Court battles and multiple dead whistleblowers
• Speculations about corporate corruption
• Damaging DEI initiatives which compromise safety and quality
• Layoffs and a perception that Boeing does not value its workforce

Now, any minute misstep by the new CEO could worsen the company’s precarious standing.

Safety and Profitability

A long-standing criticism of Boeing has been its perceived focus on profits over safety, a narrative which has intensified in recent years. The leadership changes, rather than reassuring the public, have only heightened fears that Boeing will continue down a profit-driven path at the expense of safety.

High-profile safety issues—such as those related to the 737 MAX aircraft—remain fresh in the public’s memory. Americans are increasingly vocal about Boeing’s need to overhaul its safety protocols, especially in contrast to competitors like SpaceX, which is often praised for its attention to safety.

Boeing’s relationship with the FAA has also caused scrutiny. Many perceive the FAA as lenient toward Boeing, particularly in contrast to perceived hostility toward SpaceX, fueling public frustration. Critics argue Boeing has not faced sufficient accountability for its safety lapses, and many fear that unless the new CEO addresses this issue head-on, Boeing risks safety, alienating regulators, and destroying the quality of air travel.

Labor Relations and Workforce Morale

Boeing also struggles with labor relations as layoffs, a hiring freeze, and 30,000 worker strike generates negativity. Many say the company’s actions, which leadership frame as necessary to safeguard its financial health, simply undermine workers—especially union employees.

Top executives continuing to receive substantial compensation also angers workers and the public. An infamous $45 million “golden parachute” awarded to a recently departed CEO symbolized the disconnect between Boeing’s leadership and employees.

Public and Investor Sentiment

The observing public’s sentiment toward Boeing is overwhelmingly negative. People express frustration about leadership decisions, safety hazards, and labor relations. Voter discussions reflect widespread skepticism about any prospect of meaningful change. There is a growing sense that Boeing’s issues are deep and systemic with few signs of change.

From an investor perspective, Boeing’s instability is a major concern. The company’s ability to innovate and compete—particularly against rising competitors in commercial aviation and defense—are tied to how effectively it manages this period of transition. If Boeing fails to improve its operational performance and address ongoing labor and safety issues, investor confidence could falter, leading to further financial strain.

A recent article discussing climate change revealed two distinct conversations:

• Climate change believer concerns about earth’s future
• Climate change skeptic arguments against worries or drastic action

Americans are quick to incorporate politics and energy policy into discussions about climate change. Sentiment trends are divided, with some voicing skepticism about the severity of climate change, while others emphasize the importance of addressing the issue urgently.

A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming" pic.twitter.com/HA6yxpf9V7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 20, 2024

Echo Chambers Sustain Voter Views

Some Americans question the validity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or accusing politicians and environmentalists of exaggerating its effects. They argue extreme weather events are coincidental and that fossil fuels are not a primary cause of climate change. This group typically supports politicians, like Trump and Vance, who share skepticism toward drastic government interventions to address climate change.

Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change cite its devastating impact on the environment, human health, and the economy. They argue that science is clear about the dangers of climate change, saying urgent action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources. These voters often express frustration with politicians who oppose climate change actions or support policies that prioritize fossil fuels over sustainability.

For the most part discussions seem isolated to those who share similar view, with little movement in opinion or engagement with the opposing side.

Public sentiment is also reflected in discussions around wind energy. Some highlight its importance for renewable energy, weather patterns, and ecosystems. Others express skepticism about the effectiveness of wind energy and argue it is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 32% of comments express skepticism about the severity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or exaggeration
• 41% express worry about climate change, citing its impact on the environment and human health.
• 15% emphasize the importance of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
• 12% support fossil fuels, arguing they are necessary for economic growth and energy security.

A trending pattern emerges which reveals fear of government responses or lack thereof. Climate activists tend to fear law and regulation will not be enacted fast enough to curb the potential damages of climate change. For skeptics and doubters, fear comes more from government actions which could lead to unintended consequences. This group prefers less intervention for theoretical outcomes, which they radical speculation. Overarching themes include a general distrust toward institutions what will have industrial and financial benefits.

Recent reports that the Biden Administration spent $42 billion on a “broadband expansion” project which has failed to connect anyone to the internet in three years went viral. Clips of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testifying in Congress enraged Americans. Carr explained that, after 1,039 days and billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, not a single person has been connected to the internet.

FCC Commissioner: Kamala's $42 billion broadband initiative hasn't connected anything in 3 years!

"It's been 1,039 days, and no one has been connected... no homes, no businesses, not even a shovel in the ground."

WHERE'D ALL THE MONEY GO???pic.twitter.com/M87gLy7LrB

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 19, 2024

MIG Reports data shows an overwhelming majority of Americans share Carr’s frustration and resentment. A bipartisan sentiment that government projects are failing, wasting taxpayer money, and private-sector solutions are being blocked, permeates voter discussion. Americans raise serious questions about the role of government in solving the rural broadband crisis.

$42 Billion for Nothing

Carr testified that, the past three years, the Biden-Harris administration allocated $42 billion for a broadband expansion initiative aimed at providing internet access to underserved rural areas. However, not a single household has been connected.

Americans agree with Carr’s critique, accusing the administration of gross mismanagement and calling this a clear example of government failure. For many, it exemplifies a pattern of bureaucratic incompetence, where billions are thrown at problems with no results.

In addition, Americans are angry that private sector solutions could solve the problem but are being blocked by crony capitalist corporations and government legal action.

1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days.

Vice President Harris has been leading the Administration’s signature, $42 billion plan to extend Internet to millions of Americans for 1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days now.

The result?

0️⃣ people have been connected to the Internet. Not one home. Not one business. None. pic.twitter.com/n1HLYkUZwD

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 17, 2024

The Outrage is Bipartisan

Voters across the political spectrum are not just disappointed—they're outraged. MIG Reports data shows, among all voters:

• 68% disapprove of the broadband initiative spending and failure
• 22% decry the program as typical and wasteful government mismanagement
• 7% defend the project as important for rural Americans without internet

When it comes to voter groups:

• 80% of conservatives view the initiative as an abject failure, seeing it as a clear example of wasteful spending.
• 40% of liberals defend the initiative as necessary but poorly executed, while another 30% outright criticize the project.
• 50% of Independents are skeptical of the program’s effectiveness and relevance.
• 60% of swing state voters are frustrated, viewing the initiative as yet another fake promise with no real impact.

These reactions reveal dissatisfaction and outrage across political lines. Americans are furious with this program as an egregious waste of tax dollars.

Elon’s Starlink Getting Stuffed

Elon Musk claims Starlink could solve the rural internet problem quickly and for much cheaper, delivering high-speed internet to all rural areas across the U.S. He suggests, unlike the government’s failed and expensive project, Starlink is already operational and scalable. Most Americans agree with Elon that anti-competitive corporations and government regulators are actively blocking a real solution.

NEWS: Partisan politics is why FCC revoked Starlink's rural internet award, says FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

Perhaps @SpaceX should also file a lawsuit against the FCC for improper, politically-motivated behavior – Just like the FAA.https://t.co/bO4TsoXdjJ

— ALEX (@ajtourville) September 18, 2024

Using a combination of legal battles over spectrum rights and regulatory hurdles imposed by the FCC, corporations like Dish Network have lobbied against Starlink. Worsening the situation, Carr says the Biden-Harris administration has politicized the FCC to prevent Musk and Starlink from stepping in—and Americans agree.

Voter reactions to these tactics are similarly negative:

• 71% of Americans express opposition to the FCC’s actions against Starlink.
• 15% support the FCC’s efforts.
• 14% unsure or neutral.

Bidenomics at Work

What’s striking about this issue is the bipartisan nature of the dissatisfaction. Conservatives, liberals, and swing voters are all united in their frustration over government inefficiency and failure to solve real-world problems. This isn’t limited to broadband either.

MIG Reports data among all voters shows:

• 81% say they do not trust corporate motivations.
• 58% express concerns about the impact of stifling innovation on local economies.
• 71% are frustrated with elected officials.
• 85% oppose using tax dollars to support corporations

There is a strong sense of frustration across the aisle, with many feeling their voices are not being heard. This is demonstrated by comments like, "It's just another example of how our elected officials are more interested in serving the interests of corporations than the people who elected them." Around 61% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans express a sense of disillusionment with the current state of politics.

Many voters cite examples like this broadband initiative and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's much-criticized electric vehicle (EV) charging station plan—which appropriated $7.5 billion in tax dollars and has only completed eight charging stations. Americans view both projects as emblematic of the Biden-Harris administration’s failed promises.