Trump signs EO, that for every new regulation, 2 must be revoked

[Caolela]

So you quote some things I say about Robert Gates, not tillerson and then summarize to twist my words, when I said this:


How is that not an "I don't know". I actually said those very words! You're a goddamn weasel with your selective quoting, rofl. Get the fuck out.

Yet when confronted with actual facts about Tillerson and your boy Gates, you said nothing to revert that you had "a great deal of confidence" in Tillerson.

That is a direct quote from you, not twisting anything. Not to mention how you began the diatribe with Gates and a ridiculous, gushing hype of his supposed merits to bolster your position. Yet Gates was merely paying back one of his cronies.

Once again, Skrew, you've been shown to be the biggest BS'er on these boards.

[Skroe]

Ahh, simpler times man. Simpler times. On the other hand, I think the whole affair is shaking the US up quite a bit. That in itself can be a boon if the right people know how to steer the energy into actual democratic decisions that bring the country forward. The US has always been really good at learning from past mistakes. You'll come out on top in all likelihood. Just need to suffer the pain first.

I agree. This is just a ridiculously and terrible timed distraction. We have major problems. The boomers are aging, our finances need to be fixed. China is on the move. Russia is on the march.

And we're dealing with bullshit. And we do not have the time for it.

[Spectral]

I like the idea a lot, we'll see about the execution. I'm not against regulation in principle and I've worked for a government regulatory agency, but I do think present regulations are often crafted in a fashion that's unnecessarily complicated, partly as a way to create barriers of entry via the requisite lawyers and compliance offices that are unaffordable for small companies.

Where reasonably practical, regulations should be simple and easy to judge, with an emphasis on spirit of the law over complicated frameworks to detail every circumstance. One consequence of such a philosophy is broader regulatory power for agencies to make judgment calls about compliance with broader, less detailed directives. My concern with this policy change is that it will amount to deregulation because it won't allow the sort of discretion on the part of agencies that's required to decrease the number of regulations without diminishing efficacy.

[cubby]

They will do everything in their power to distance themselves from this. The problem is the dems will not do everything in their power to tie them to it. They didnt during the election. They never went after paul ryan.

I agree, but Ryan has a pretty good following - and there were bigger fish to fry. Coupled with the fact that the Dems were caught aggregiously out of position, and almost lost everything. If Trump wasn't such an insane idiot, we could be in real trouble.

My optimistic outlook is this:

2018 - Dems take House and Senate
2019 - Articles of Impeachment, Senate trial - Trump out.
2019 - 46th President sworn in - Pence
2020 - Pence defeated by Dem candidate for President, DNC retains both House and Senate

Trump will not resign - he nihilism is too far gone for any act of decency.

[Machismo]

That's puzzling most of us, Americans and non-Americans alike. You've got to ask Trumpskis about how this is going to work practically. I'd be curious to get an actual hands-on, practical and feasible example that could work across all regulation proposals. Some sort of system that makes sense.

The issue is whether Trump thinks he gets to pick which two regulations go away. If someone wants to push a regulation, there are literally tens of thousands put in place by corporations in order to limit competition. I could make a regulation against a company, then find two more that the very same company lobbied to put into existence. I love the theory, but in practice, it's going to be an epic abortion.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I think this is going to be Trump's style going forward: a kind of 'off the cuff' legislation that mirrors things he's said or has been told by Bannon et al, without a single shred of thought or research put behind it. We've seen it with the Muslim ban, and with EOing the pipelines to be built with American steel after the steel had already been bought. Trump's a caricature of a bad president, and it's only going to get worse.

[Skroe]

Yet when confronted with actual facts about Tillerson and your boy Gates, you said nothing to revert that you had "a great deal of confidence" in Tillerson.

That is a direct quote from you, not twisting anything. Not to mention how you began the diatribe with Gates and a ridiculous, gushing hype of his merits to bolster your position. Yet Gates was merely paying back one of his cronies.

Once again, Skrew, you've been shown to be the biggest BS'er on these boards.

I said nothing because I made my point. What more was there to say? "No you"? I do think business people make good public servants selectively. You don't. Okay. Too bad? I gave my qualified position on Tillerson: "I don't know, I hope my trust in Gates is rewarded; I'm unsure based on his testimony it will be. We'll see."

And my "diatribe" about Gates was meant to put into context why i trust gates. Trust in gates translates to why I gave a qualified trust in his opinion on Tillerson.

I know, given your posting history, that is a bit much, but it's how us grounded people kind of work.

[Slant]

I think this is going to be Trump's style going forward: a kind of 'off the cuff' legislation that mirrors things he's said or has been told by Bannon et al, without a single shred of thought or research put behind it. We've seen it with the Muslim ban, and with EOing the pipelines to be built with American steel after the steel had already been bought. Trump's a caricature of a bad president, and it's only going to get worse.

Is his true? What happens to the steel and where did it come from?

Also, fun fact... whenever I see videos of pilots of the glorious SR-71 talk about their plane, they start giggling when they tell the story on how the Russians provided the titanium for the plane that was going to spy on them. How times change...

[Caolela]

I said nothing because I made my point. What more was there to say? "No you"? I do think business people make good public servants selectively. You don't. Okay. Too bad? I gave my qualified position on Tillerson: "I don't know, I hope my trust in Gates is rewarded; I'm unsure based on his testimony it will be. We'll see."

And my "diatribe" about Gates was meant to put into context why i trust gates. Trust in gates translates to why I gave a qualified trust in his opinion on Tillerson.

I know, given your posting history, that is a bit much, but it's how us grounded people kind of work.

You don't need to remind me that you still believe your own delusions. You do have to work hard though to convince others that you're one of the "grounded people"......that has a knack for constructing alternate realities.

"What more was there to say...", at least from anyone who wasn't so disingenuous and made a habit of lying or obfuscating in every other post to fit an agenda, would have been to clearly acknowledge the facts about both Tillerson and Gates and then to admit that your support was misplaced.

Pretty simple.

[serenka]

This seems stupid and potentially dangerous, so if a new regulation is introduced people are going to be forced to remove others? If he thinks red tape needs to be cut, thats fine, but identify where it needs to be cut first.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Is his true? What happens to the steel and where did it come from?

Also, fun fact... whenever I see videos of pilots of the glorious SR-71 talk about their plane, they start giggling when they tell the story on how the Russians provided the titanium for the plane that was going to spy on them. How times change...

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...s_america.html

How can this be ambiguous? Isn't American steel just that -- American steel?

Yes and no. Consider pledges made earlier for steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline. The builder, TransCanada Corp., said in 2012 that half of the pipe for the United States portions, or 332,800 tons, would come from a company in Arkansas, and the rest would come from Canada, Italy and India.

But TransCanada added a caveat, whose key words we'll put in italics: "It is important to understand pipeline companies do not purchase raw steel. Rather, we purchase sophisticated manufactured products such as high strength steel pipe and pumps that are fabricated from steel and other metals."

The raw steel for the pipe, in other words, could have been melted and poured -- a labor- and financially intensive process -- anywhere in the world before being shipped to the United States for fabrication. That happens a lot, according to authorities on manufacturing. Nevertheless, the finished pipe still would have counted toward that old 50 percent pledge by TransCanada.

He could have done an EO saying that, oh, all future infrastructure projects should use American steel, and so forth. But nope, gotta make himself sound important rather than actually do important things.

[Kiri]

This seems stupid and potentially dangerous, so if a new regulation is introduced people are going to be forced to remove others? If he thinks red tape needs to be cut, thats fine, but identify where it needs to be cut first.

I think his point of view is very, very simple. Regulations are bad. All of them. So if you want new ones, you need to get rid of old ones. I don't think he much cares about which a erased, because Trump is all about numbers. See inauguration crowd, illegal voters, people detained, etc. As long as the net amount of regulations does not increase, he will count it as a win - and that is what counts.

[Aehl]

I honestly don't know what this means. I need far more details.

It's simple. Red tape strangles business, over regulation strangles growth.

Or to put it another way "It is time the US government got off peoples backs and left them alone"..the amount of form filling and regulaiton in both small and large busimness is way out of hand.

[serenka]

I think his point of view is very, very simple. Regulations are bad. All of them. So if you want new ones, you need to get rid of old ones. I don't think he much cares about which a erased, because Trump is all about numbers. See inauguration crowd, illegal voters, people detained, etc. As long as the net amount of regulations does not increase, he will count it as a win - and that is what counts.

sounds about right, its stupid though because he could pledge to cut "red tape" and that wouldn't be seen as a bad thing by most people, but doing it like this is just stupid. Also this isn't something that is easy to do, its not like the government just has a big book called 'regulations' that when a new one is made someone can just go through and cross two off

[Powerogue]

I don't mind it. I mean let's face it, our regulation system is bloated and expensive as fuck, doing away with the outdated and useless regulations to introduce new and necessary regulation is far better than just keep the bloated system even more ¿"bloaty-er"?

I guess. That depends on the people in charge actually taking a systematic, rational approach to this process.

[Kiri]

sounds about right, its stupid though because he could pledge to cut "red tape" and that wouldn't be seen as a bad thing by most people, but doing it like this is just stupid. Also this isn't something that is easy to do, its not like the government just has a big book called 'regulations' that when a new one is made someone can just go through and cross two off

Yep. But you have to see, that is the beauty of it: it ain't his problem. He doesn't have to deal with this any further, others can sort it out. And if they don't, 4 years of no new regulations, still a win to him. If you look at it through the 'all regulations are bad' lens it makes perfect sense.

[LaserSharkDFB]

It's simple. Red tape strangles business, over regulation strangles growth.

Or to put it another way "It is time the US government got off peoples backs and left them alone"..the amount of form filling and regulaiton in both small and large busimness is way out of hand.

Or to put it another way, "It's time the US government stopped protecting its people from businesses desperate to take advantage of them in order to make a buck."

Again, if you want to target specific regulations, fine. But regulations aren't in and of themselves bad, and are generally there for a reason.

[Spectral]

I think his point of view is very, very simple. Regulations are bad.

This is obviously not his stance. He's explicit that this isn't his stance and introducing this policy in no way reflects this claim.

[Kiri]

This is obviously not his stance. He's explicit that this isn't his stance and introducing this policy in no way reflects this claim.

Not his public stance. Trump can say a whole lot of things, but unless I see him actually live up to that, I will file it under alternative facts.

[Spectral]

Or to put it another way, "It's time the US government stopped protecting its people from businesses desperate to take advantage of them in order to make a buck."

There are a non-trivial number of regulations that are deliberately complex or onerous as barriers to entry. I'm in favor of regulations that protect consumers from predatory business, but quite a few regulations do exactly the opposite. A classic example is the taxi industry - taxi regulation doesn't improve the lives of consumers, it's a protection racket for taxis to charge vastly more than they can in a competitive market. FiveThirtyEight discusses other examples here. Other examples are onerously complex regulations that create the need for wasteful compliance offices that aren't improving anyone's life, but make sure a sufficiently large business won't have competitors.

These regulations stay in place due to both corruption and inertia. Requiring removal of regulation in exchange for creation of new ones breaks at least the inertia portion of this.

I have zero faith that this will go well with this administration implementing it, but the idea is perfectly fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Not his public stance. Trump can say a whole lot of things, but unless I see him actually live up to that, I will file it under alternative facts.

I have no idea how you think this deliberate ignorance and blatant lying is any better or different than Trump's actions. Do you like acting like Trump?