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

[Timmy]

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?

Tell it to the GOP . Cause they only care what's good for their big biz masters . The people be damned !

 

[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?

Tell it to the GOP . Cause they only care what's good for their big biz masters . The people be damned !

Trump is doing this to BENEFIT the American PEOPLE, not the fucking lawyers and bureaucrats, dude.

 

[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

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

You compared getting rid of regulations with legalizing crimes and you call me a "dummy?"

 

[OldLady]

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 .

A lot of the regulations contradict other regulations on the same subject. I ran into it a lot when a new directive would come down from the state. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And if you ask a question, no one actually knows the answer. I wouldn't worry too much, Timmy. Plenty of regs can be eliminated without doing anything at all.

 

[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?

Actually...that is why we have regulations

The government acts as a ref to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules and the rules do not give one side a competitive advantage

Once we remove those regulations, Business is not just free to exploit their employees but to exploit other businesses

 

[martybegan]

Last week was full of win, some people are feeling tired already.

But the serving God-Emperor is confident, it's a new week and what better way to start it than by winning some more.


"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

Snowflakes will be in tears, this makes far too much common sense, their logic centers will be overloaded. They said Trump wouldn't keep his promises... now they are complaining that he indeed lives up to the hype.

No one's noticed. Their outrage is focus elsewhere.

One might almost think he is doing certain things intentionally grandiose to mask his other policy moves......

 

[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 .

Yes, who needs jobs?

Sure we need jobs . But we also need clean air . The trick is to balance both interests .

 

[owebo]

Last week was full of win, some people are feeling tired already.

But the serving God-Emperor is confident, it's a new week and what better way to start it than by winning some more.


"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

Snowflakes will be in tears, this makes far too much common sense, their logic centers will be overloaded. They said Trump wouldn't keep his promises... now they are complaining that he indeed lives up to the hype.

Winning!!!

 

[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?

Actually...that is why we have regulations

The government acts as a ref to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules and the rules do not give one side a competitive advantage

Once we remove those regulations, Business is not just free to exploit their employees but to exploit other businesses

The issue is you have multiple layers of regulations, that can often contradict each other, and no one over cleans up the old one when new ones supersede them.

The problem started when your side saw regulations as a way to get rid of things you don't like, not as a tool to control things a certain way.

Your argument is still argumentum ad absurdum, because 95% of the people supporting this don't want all regulations gone, they just wan them to be clear, concise, and not simply there to make paperwork and work for paper pushers.

 

[miketx]

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?

Try reading some government regs sometime, Norman. I think it's WONDERFUL that he's trying this, but I agree with Boo that the devil is truly in the details. They're ghastly and interwoven like a house of cards.
.

So then no new regs will be introduced then, right?

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

A lot of the regulations contradict other regulations on the same subject. I ran into it a lot when a new directive would come down from the state. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And if you ask a question, no one actually knows the answer. I wouldn't worry too much, Timmy. Plenty of regs can be eliminated without doing anything at all.

If Trump had merely said he was going to eliminate obsolete or redundant regulations, I have no problem with that

But when he arbitrarily declares that two out of every three regulations are not needed, he is just governing like a moron

 

[miketx]

The first two regulations he'll want to cut will probably involve financial conflicts of interest regulations for officeholders.

Confusing regulations for laws, good one.

 

[Iceweasel]

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 . "

So you believe every regulation is that dire? You must be a liberal.

There are far too many regulations and it will reach a tipping point where no important ones would find support for dropping so no new ones will be added. There are plenty to choose from, especially after Obama.

 

[martybegan]

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 .

A lot of the regulations contradict other regulations on the same subject. I ran into it a lot when a new directive would come down from the state. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And if you ask a question, no one actually knows the answer. I wouldn't worry too much, Timmy. Plenty of regs can be eliminated without doing anything at all.

If Trump had merely said he was going to eliminate obsolete or redundant regulations, I have no problem with that

But when he arbitrarily declares that two out of every three regulations are not needed, he is just governing like a moron

It's not a permanent thing, but it gets the people writing new regulations into the proper mindset. and the beauty of it is he leaves it to the people who know the most about the regulations to get it done.

It's called draining the swamp, he did say he was going to do that, and it seems he does tend to keep his promises.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Regulations are out of control, though, RW. It's not all about undermining important safety regs. Business and just about anyone trying to do business, including Medicare and Medicaid providers, with the feds are so discouraged by the paperwork and the huge pile of rules that it has become paralyzing. That IS true.

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

A lot of the regulations contradict other regulations on the same subject. I ran into it a lot when a new directive would come down from the state. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And if you ask a question, no one actually knows the answer. I wouldn't worry too much, Timmy. Plenty of regs can be eliminated without doing anything at all.

If Trump had merely said he was going to eliminate obsolete or redundant regulations, I have no problem with that

But when he arbitrarily declares that two out of every three regulations are not needed, he is just governing like a moron

It's not a permanent thing, but it gets the people writing new regulations into the proper mindset. and the beauty of it is he leaves it to the people who know the most about the regulations to get it done.

It's called draining the swamp, he did say he was going to do that, and it seems he does tend to keep his promises.

It really creates a whole new swamp
Arbitrary declarations tend to do that.

If Trump means get rid of redundant, conflicting and obsolete regulations....He should say that

That process should be conducted on its own without an arbitrary requirement to get rid of two for every new one you write. Trump is declaring that two out of every three regulations is not needed without a shred of evidence backing him

 

[Norman]

"The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now."

Federal Regulations Have Made You 75 Percent Poorer

"The scope of federal government spending, deficits, and the national debt is staggering — but so is the cost of federal regulations. In fact, the cost of federal regulation exceeds half of what the U.S. federal government spends annually. But unfortunately, regulations get little attention in policy debates. Unlike taxes, they are difficult to quantify because they are unbudgeted and often indirect."

Ten Thousand Commandments

10,000 commandments you say? Let's go back to 10 and make America great again.

 

[owebo]

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 .

A lot of the regulations contradict other regulations on the same subject. I ran into it a lot when a new directive would come down from the state. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And if you ask a question, no one actually knows the answer. I wouldn't worry too much, Timmy. Plenty of regs can be eliminated without doing anything at all.

If Trump had merely said he was going to eliminate obsolete or redundant regulations, I have no problem with that

But when he arbitrarily declares that two out of every three regulations are not needed, he is just governing like a moron

Thanks for your approval of Trumps action!

 

[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?

Regulations are out of control, though, RW. It's not all about undermining important safety regs. Business and just about anyone trying to do business, including Medicare and Medicaid providers, with the feds are so discouraged by the paperwork and the huge pile of rules that it has become paralyzing. That IS true.

Then attack those regulations on their own merit

 

[westwall]

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?

It has worked well in BC, and in the UK as well. It's long overdue in this country.