WIN, WIN, WIN! Trump Unleashes Plan to Cut Two Existing Regulations for Every New Regulation.

[BluesLegend]

The Obama administration created hundreds of thousands of pages of new government regulations, and people wonder why we are losing our jobs.

 

[Timmy]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

There are plenty of old laws on the books that could be gotten rid of, like dirgible-jacking, or skipping on the left side of the street.

Same thing with regulations.

True . And those regs should be cleaned up . So clean them up!

There's no need for a 2 for one quota .

What if an Angecy wants to change a reg for the better of everyone. Why would they bother? If they do they have to dump two others . You now have an incentive NOT to change bad rules .

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Stupid and short sided "solutions" from from short sided idiots playing at governance. For instance, what the Hell is the FAA supposed to do if tech innovations again change a host of circumstances which require the modification of a complimentary host of regulations? Think about it and let it sink in!

There's an easy workaround for every Agency to safeguard against the discarding those important regulations safeguarding public health and safety. For any new regulation, incorporate two existing related regulations and then delete the two existing regulations. Two regulations gone and one regulation added...done and done.

 

[Norman]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Stupid and short sided "solutions" from from short sided idiots playing at governance. For instance, what the Hell is the FAA supposed to do if tech innovations again change a host of circumstances which require the modification of a complimentary host of regulations? Think about it and let it sink in!

There's an easy workaround for every Agency to safeguard against the discarding those important regulations safeguarding public health and safety. For any new regulation, incorporate two existing related regulations and then delete the two existing regulations. Two regulations gone and one regulation added...done and done.

There already is a safeguard for not ditching the important regulations. It's called DON'T DISREGARD THEM.

Clearly the whole the whole purpose here is to get rid of the bloat, while also making it acceptable to dismantle regulations. If tech changes the agency can add the new regulation, but it will have to remove two bullshit ones. If it's really important, they can just call Trump.. but he will laugh at them if it truly isn't important or if there still are crazy regulations on the books.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Stupid and short sided "solutions" from from short sided idiots playing at governance. For instance, what the Hell is the FAA supposed to do if tech innovations again change a host of circumstances which require the modification of a complimentary host of regulations? Think about it and let it sink in!

There's an easy workaround for every Agency to safeguard against the discarding those important regulations safeguarding public health and safety. For any new regulation, incorporate two existing related regulations and then delete the two existing regulations. Two regulations gone and one regulation added...done and done.

There already is a safeguard for not ditching the important regulations. It's called DON'T DISREGARD THEM.

Clearly the whole the whole purpose here is to get rid of the bloat, while also making it acceptable to dismantle regulations. If tech changes the agency can add the new regulation, but it will have to remove two bullshit ones. If it's really important, they can just call Trump.. but he will laugh at them if it truly isn't important or if there still are crazy regulations on the books.

If it's really important, they can just call Trump.. but he will laugh at them if it truly isn't important or if there still are crazy regulations on the books.

Really? Cite the top ten "crazy regulations on the books" in your estimation, but with SPECIFICITY and not nonsense generalities then. Should be a piece of cake for you!

 

[Rustic]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

You need to quit falling down the well…
There's nothing moral about EPA regulations and regulations that stifle small business

 

[Timmy]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

You need to quit falling down the well…
There's nothing moral about EPA regulations and regulations that stifle small business

God forbid we have clean air and water !

Have you ever looked into the history of how the EPA came about ?

 

[HenryBHough]

Only two (2, liberals)?

Oh shit now I gots a sad!

 

[Rustic]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

You need to quit falling down the well…
There's nothing moral about EPA regulations and regulations that stifle small business

God forbid we have clean air and water !

Have you ever looked into the history of how the EPA came about ?

The EPA needs to be replaced with common sense…

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[martybegan]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

There are plenty of old laws on the books that could be gotten rid of, like dirgible-jacking, or skipping on the left side of the street.

Same thing with regulations.

True . And those regs should be cleaned up . So clean them up!

There's no need for a 2 for one quota .

What if an Angecy wants to change a reg for the better of everyone. Why would they bother? If they do they have to dump two others . You now have an incentive NOT to change bad rules .

The rule isn't about changing a regulation, its about adding a new one. and this policy is needed to get regulators in the proper mindset, i.e. work smarter, not operate in "drown them with red tape" mode.

 

[The VOR]

"President Trump on Monday signed an executive order aimed at rolling back regulations, fulfilling one of his campaign pledges.

Federal agencies will need to revoke two regulations for every new regulation they request."
Trump's Two Out One In Regulatory Rule Could Be His Most Significant Act Yet

What a childish fool your messiah is. Okay guys, for every new regulation you REQUEST, you'll have to cut two. I don't care which two you do away with, just pick any two at random and be done with them.

What a fucking idiot, LOL.

 

[rightwinger]

Who needs regulation of our business, financial and environmental sector anyway?

They only get in the way of big business making a profit. If we take away regulation, those profits will trickle down in more jobs and money for everyone....I mean, it always worked that way in the past didn't it?

If we can't trust big business to look out for us....who can you trust?

 

[Timmy]

Who needs regulation of our business, financial and environmental sector anyway?

They only get in the way of big business making a profit. If we take away regulation, those profits will trickle down in more jobs and money for everyone....I mean, it always worked that way in the past didn't it?

If we can't trust big business to look out for us....who can you trust?

The country is not here for the benefit of big biz. It's for the benefit of the people .

 

[rightwinger]

Who needs regulation of our business, financial and environmental sector anyway?

They only get in the way of big business making a profit. If we take away regulation, those profits will trickle down in more jobs and money for everyone....I mean, it always worked that way in the past didn't it?

If we can't trust big business to look out for us....who can you trust?

The country is not here for the benefit of big biz. It's for the benefit of the people .

Of course we can't trust government to act in our best interests.....only big business knows what is best for us

 

[JimBowie1958]

The country is not here for the benefit of big biz. It's for the benefit of the people .

Wow, what a concept, Timmy!

Did you finally glance at the Constitution?

 

[martybegan]

Who needs regulation of our business, financial and environmental sector anyway?

They only get in the way of big business making a profit. If we take away regulation, those profits will trickle down in more jobs and money for everyone....I mean, it always worked that way in the past didn't it?

If we can't trust big business to look out for us....who can you trust?

 

[kaz]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

You don't know the difference between crimes and regulations? Of course you don't. And you wonder why you're bleeding seats in every level of government

 

[kaz]

Who needs regulation of our business, financial and environmental sector anyway?

They only get in the way of big business making a profit. If we take away regulation, those profits will trickle down in more jobs and money for everyone....I mean, it always worked that way in the past didn't it?

If we can't trust big business to look out for us....who can you trust?

The country is not here for the benefit of big biz. It's for the benefit of the people .

Yes, who needs jobs?

 

[Timmy]

Nice as a talking point. But as we've seen, the devil is in the detail. The Grabber is big on talking points, implementation seem to be a bit of an issue. I guess that's the risk you take when you go straight for the prize, huh?

Here is how it's implemented:

Every agency needs to cut two regulations for every new one added.


Exactly what will be problematic about implementing this?

Because it's arbitrary and kind of stupid .

Imagine we did that wh our laws too.

"Hmmm we want to make assaulting police officers a felony . But we'll have to get rid of child pornography and wife beating . "

You don't know the difference between crimes and regulations? Of course you don't. And you wonder why you're bleeding seats in every level of government

Dummy, I said "laws" in order to make an example that would be easier for you dense meatheads to understand .