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

[rightwinger]

"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.

Sorry...but that just looks like a bunch of bullshit

 

[OldLady]

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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

 

[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.

Sorry...but that just looks like a bunch of bullshit

Stunning rebuttal!

"Something disagrees with my communist worldview so it must be invalid".
- Regressive logic.

 

[miketx]

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

He did say that. You are just to deluded to see it, or for that matter, anything else.

 

[martybegan]

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

Well Canada has tried a "one for one" reduction for red tape (BC did two for one for a while, and things seemed to keep working just fine). Much like clearing out deadwood however, the US probably has to use 2 for 1 until such time as the red tape is under control.

Canada Cuts Down On Red Tape. Could It Work In The U.S.?

This forces the regulators to go over all the regs on the books currently, and find ones they can either live without, or are made redundant by the new ones they are proposing.

 

[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?

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

Actually its better to make the ones writing the new regulations figure out which ones are either no longer needed, or could be lived without.

 

[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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

With a 2:1 mandate, it does not take long to start hitting important stuff

 

[martybegan]

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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

With a 2:1 mandate, it does not take long to start hitting important stuff

I disagree. There is probably plenty of fluff and redundancy that can be pruned without any harm whatsoever.

 

[westwall]

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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

With a 2:1 mandate, it does not take long to start hitting important stuff

Clearly you have no clue just how many ridiculous regulations there are.

 

[rightwinger]

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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

With a 2:1 mandate, it does not take long to start hitting important stuff

I disagree. There is probably plenty of fluff and redundancy that can be pruned without any harm whatsoever.

Then lets do it on its own merits instead of having to implement arbitrary 2:1 thresholds

 

[martybegan]

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

We get it that you think Trump is a moron. But remember that it is the Agency itself that will suggest the two regs to eliminate. They will not propose doing away with anything important.

With a 2:1 mandate, it does not take long to start hitting important stuff

I disagree. There is probably plenty of fluff and redundancy that can be pruned without any harm whatsoever.

Then lets do it on its own merits instead of having to implement arbitrary 2:1 thresholds

When you have a culture that sees more regulation as always better, you have to take measures like this to fix said culture.

Again, Canada did it, and is continuing to do it, because they saw it worked. It can go eventually down to 1:1, but for now, lets get out the weed whacker and start clearing the brush.