Trump's Deregulatory Successes

[longknife]

I don’t pretend to understand a lot of this. It seems the thrust is that deregulation frees up business which allows it to expand and hire more people. Something very good for the economy.


And that President Trump is directly behind the effort to deregulate.

In its conclusion, the CEA sums up the issue nicely:

Since 2017, consumers and small businesses have been able to live and work with more choice and less Federal government interference [DRH note: in the areas the CEA analyzed.] They can purchase health insurance in groups or as individuals without paying for categories of coverage that they do not want or need. Small businesses can design compensation packages that meet the needs of their employees, enter into a genuine franchise relationship with a larger corporation, or seek confidential professional advice on the organization of their workplaces. Consumers have a variety of choices as to less expensive wireless and wired Internet access. Small banks are no longer treated as “too big to fail” (they never were) and be subject to the costly regulatory scrutiny that goes with that designation.

As President Obama said three days after taking office in 2009, “Elections have consequences.” One consequence of President Trump’s election, which came as a welcome surprise to those of us who saw nothing in his past to suggest he was a deregulator, is a series of deregulatory measures and a slowing of regulation.

Just as the power to regulate is the power to destroy, the power to engage in judicious deregulation is the power to allow creation.

More @ Trump's Deregulatory Successes

 

[Timmy]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

 

[caddo kid]

Regulations led to safer highway designs, safer work places, safer autos/trucks/trains/planes, safer drinking water, better air quality, less pollution, etc., among other gains, for the greater majority of the population.

I say let's just thorw ALL of that into the waste basket because the only thing that matters is PROFIT!!!!!!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

I don’t pretend to understand a lot of this. It seems the thrust is that deregulation frees up business which allows it to expand and hire more people. Something very good for the economy.


And that President Trump is directly behind the effort to deregulate.

In its conclusion, the CEA sums up the issue nicely:

Since 2017, consumers and small businesses have been able to live and work with more choice and less Federal government interference [DRH note: in the areas the CEA analyzed.] They can purchase health insurance in groups or as individuals without paying for categories of coverage that they do not want or need. Small businesses can design compensation packages that meet the needs of their employees, enter into a genuine franchise relationship with a larger corporation, or seek confidential professional advice on the organization of their workplaces. Consumers have a variety of choices as to less expensive wireless and wired Internet access. Small banks are no longer treated as “too big to fail” (they never were) and be subject to the costly regulatory scrutiny that goes with that designation.

As President Obama said three days after taking office in 2009, “Elections have consequences.” One consequence of President Trump’s election, which came as a welcome surprise to those of us who saw nothing in his past to suggest he was a deregulator, is a series of deregulatory measures and a slowing of regulation.

Just as the power to regulate is the power to destroy, the power to engage in judicious deregulation is the power to allow creation.

More @ Trump's Deregulatory Successes

One consequence of President Trump’s election, which came as a welcome surprise to those of us who saw nothing in his past to suggest he was a deregulator, is a series of deregulatory measures and a slowing of regulation.

Another consequence of "clean, clean coal" was a 15% increase in dirty air:

US air quality is slipping after years of improvement

"There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when America had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

 

[georgephillip]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

 

[georgephillip]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source.

 

[georgephillip]

Kind of depends on what is “deregulated” and at what costs .

It would sure be good for business if they can dump pollution into the river . But it ain’t good for the population to have polluted water.

Not everything good for business is actually good for America. Most of these regs tie back to some bad action by business .

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source.

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source

Politico is far more reliable than Trump.

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"TRUMP: "One of the main messages of air pollution, particulate matters is six times lower here than the global average. We hear so much about what other countries and what everyone else is doing. Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on earth."

"Air pollution in the U.S. has indeed plummeted since Congress last overhauled the Clean Air Act in 1990, at least judged by EPA data on several key pollutants. But that downward trend appears to have reversed itself in 2018, when greenhouse gases began rising again after falling to a 25-year low in 2017.

"The Rhodium Group, an independent research group, said in May that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by as much as 2.5 percent last year, while efforts to lessen carbon pollution by the utility industry slowed in 2018."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Stop whining and list the Trump deregulations that hurt America.

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source.

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source

Politico is far more reliable than Trump.

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"TRUMP: "One of the main messages of air pollution, particulate matters is six times lower here than the global average. We hear so much about what other countries and what everyone else is doing. Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on earth."

"Air pollution in the U.S. has indeed plummeted since Congress last overhauled the Clean Air Act in 1990, at least judged by EPA data on several key pollutants. But that downward trend appears to have reversed itself in 2018, when greenhouse gases began rising again after falling to a 25-year low in 2017.

"The Rhodium Group, an independent research group, said in May that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by as much as 2.5 percent last year, while efforts to lessen carbon pollution by the utility industry slowed in 2018."

Meh....reminds me of your climate alarmist bullshit.
Stop crying wolf and we might listen. At this point everything you dipshits say is suspect.

 

[georgephillip]

Where do you want to start?
EPA, maybe?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"Environmental advocates say the Trump administration’s track record shows his disregard for the work of the EPA, an agency he said during his campaign he would reduce to 'little bits.'"

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source.

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source

Politico is far more reliable than Trump.

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"TRUMP: "One of the main messages of air pollution, particulate matters is six times lower here than the global average. We hear so much about what other countries and what everyone else is doing. Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on earth."

"Air pollution in the U.S. has indeed plummeted since Congress last overhauled the Clean Air Act in 1990, at least judged by EPA data on several key pollutants. But that downward trend appears to have reversed itself in 2018, when greenhouse gases began rising again after falling to a 25-year low in 2017.

"The Rhodium Group, an independent research group, said in May that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by as much as 2.5 percent last year, while efforts to lessen carbon pollution by the utility industry slowed in 2018."

Meh....reminds me of your climate alarmist bullshit.
Stop crying wolf and we might listen. At this point everything you dipshits say is suspect.

Meh....reminds me of your climate alarmist bullshit.
Stop crying wolf and we might listen. At this point everything you dipshits say is suspect.

Who told you climate change was "alarmist"?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

So you want me to take the word of politico and an agency that Trump has reigned in?
Fat chance.

Perhaps Trump is playing 2020 politics with this issue?

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"The speech comes amid a reelection effort in which Trump’s environmental record is a prime point of attack for Democrats who have identified climate change as one of their signature issues. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend found that 62 percent of people disapprove of Trump's work on climate change while just 29 percent approve."

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4477

"The White House tried to stop a State Department senior intelligence analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week, internal emails and documents show.

"The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research declined to make changes to the proposed testimony and the analyst, Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, was ultimately allowed to speak before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

"But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views."

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source.

Sorry.
Politico is not a reliable source

Politico is far more reliable than Trump.

Fact Check: Trump's environmental rhetoric versus his record

"TRUMP: "One of the main messages of air pollution, particulate matters is six times lower here than the global average. We hear so much about what other countries and what everyone else is doing. Since 2000, our nation’s energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on earth."

"Air pollution in the U.S. has indeed plummeted since Congress last overhauled the Clean Air Act in 1990, at least judged by EPA data on several key pollutants. But that downward trend appears to have reversed itself in 2018, when greenhouse gases began rising again after falling to a 25-year low in 2017.

"The Rhodium Group, an independent research group, said in May that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by as much as 2.5 percent last year, while efforts to lessen carbon pollution by the utility industry slowed in 2018."

Meh....reminds me of your climate alarmist bullshit.
Stop crying wolf and we might listen. At this point everything you dipshits say is suspect.

Meh....reminds me of your climate alarmist bullshit.
Stop crying wolf and we might listen. At this point everything you dipshits say is suspect.

Who told you climate change was "alarmist"?

I've never seen that twitter.
And dont care one way or another.
Fact of the matter is we were expected to ass up trillions while no one else did SHIT!!!
Nothing more than a globalist wealth distribution scam.

 

[longknife]

There are tens of thousands more regulations than those foisted upon us by the EPA.

 

[B. Kidd]

The U.S. only contributes a whole 13% of bad emissions towards climate change.

Now, can any fuckwad tell me how we get China, India, and other major polluting countries to reign it in realistically?

ANS: NONE, realistically!!!