Trump's 7 point Drain the Swamp Plan & 100 Day Agenda

[Danny Bateman]

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations. Seems more symbolic to me than useful. I'm all for cutting useless regulations, but a lot of them are there for good reason, and a rule like that seems like a good way to cut into the important ones in a harmful way.

 

Climate change goes without saying. I hope Obama can lock in the Paris accord somehow. Beyond that, kiss caring about that goodbye for the next four years..

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the overall incorporation of technology within our government do not seem to be where they need to be, particularly with regards to our cybersecurity capabilities. Why would the best of the best cybersecurity experts take a modest government salary when they can make far more than that in the private sector? The incentive just doesn't seem to be there on either side right now.

 

Between cybersecurity issues and possibly hiring this guy as the head of the NSA, things are looking up!

 

[zoogs]

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

[TGHusker]

The funny/sad thing about the 7 point part is that I am completely for most of it but congress will never let it happen.

I agree - since a lot of it is designed to reign in the fed govt, Congress would be having to vote against its selfish interests.

[TGHusker]

 

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

 

Yes, however, after reading this article below, I think there is a need for regulation reform/cuts. Of course that has been a mantra for decades. I remember Al Gore was going to be the big regulation cutter as VP under Clinton.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

[knapplc]

 

 

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

 

Yes, however, after reading this article below, I think there is a need for regulation reform/cuts. Of course that has been a mantra for decades. I remember Al Gore was going to be the big regulation cutter as VP under Clinton.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

 

 

Why is the number of pages important? Aren't the actual number of regulations more important? What is the number of actual regulations issue by Obama, not just pages?

 

Has Obama issued more regulations than other presidents? Have we needed as many regulations under other presidents as we've needed under Obama? As the world gets more complicated and more things exist, doesn't it stand to reason that we'd have more regulations?

 

Are all regulations bad?

 

Is the word "regulations" just another in a litany of buzz words from Conservative wordsmiths like "BENGHAZI!!" or "Clinton Emails" or "Birth Certificate" that fail to have meaning, just induce feeling?

 

Why doesn't the article you linked have commentary from both sides of the aisle? Why just a conservative source for a Democrat president? Doesn't that seem a little red-flaggish to you?

[Moiraine]

I'd wager that not even 10% of regulations are bad. Money. Is. NOT. Everything. Some regulations keep people from dying. Some keep companies from ripping consumers off.

[zoogs]

Obama has been issuing a lot of regulations.

 

I don't know exactly how to feel about that. But I'm not exactly inclined to go to bat for businesses on this one, either. Sometimes regulations are bad. Other times lack of regulations is bad.

 

There a lot of things to have the regulate-or-not discussion about these days. When did we start worrying about the health effects of beryllium? Or cigarettes, for that matter?

 

A "red meat" guideline arguing for a strict numerical removal on principle doesn't sound terribly wise to me. Neither does a hiring freeze. It's good to talk about government scope, sure, but suffocation by attrition, what bureaucracies will that affect and is that good for us?

 

Mostly the topic of regulatory discretion and who should have it is not something I've explored.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

 

Yes, however, after reading this article below, I think there is a need for regulation reform/cuts. Of course that has been a mantra for decades. I remember Al Gore was going to be the big regulation cutter as VP under Clinton.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

 

 

Why is the number of pages important? Aren't the actual number of regulations more important? What is the number of actual regulations issue by Obama, not just pages?

 

Has Obama issued more regulations than other presidents? Have we needed as many regulations under other presidents as we've needed under Obama? As the world gets more complicated and more things exist, doesn't it stand to reason that we'd have more regulations?

 

Are all regulations bad?

 

Is the word "regulations" just another in a litany of buzz words from Conservative wordsmiths like "BENGHAZI!!" or "Clinton Emails" or "Birth Certificate" that fail to have meaning, just induce feeling?

 

Why doesn't the article you linked have commentary from both sides of the aisle? Why just a conservative source for a Democrat president? Doesn't that seem a little red-flaggish to you?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know

Question # 1 Important only as comparison to historical trends and reflective in a loose sense to the # of regulations.

2. & 3. The world has always been complicated.

4. Not all regulation are bad of course. Many and perhaps most may be required to maintain a civilized society. Many however restrict liberty.

5. Regulations have real meaning and they have both positive and negative affects on society. Not all regs are created equal. Some are needed for the common welfare and some are an overreach of a massive federal govt.

6. I would say most articles linked on HB present one side of the story. I haven't seen you ask that of someone posting from Slate, Huffington Post, etc

7. Maybe that site was the only one willing to report it. Maybe the left leading sites didn't want to report something that would lead to questions about over regulations.

8. No - It is a factual article. If the Huffington Post had posted the information it would have remained as factual as posted by the Examiner.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

 

Yes, however, after reading this article below, I think there is a need for regulation reform/cuts. Of course that has been a mantra for decades. I remember Al Gore was going to be the big regulation cutter as VP under Clinton.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

 

 

Why is the number of pages important? Aren't the actual number of regulations more important? What is the number of actual regulations issue by Obama, not just pages?

 

Has Obama issued more regulations than other presidents? Have we needed as many regulations under other presidents as we've needed under Obama? As the world gets more complicated and more things exist, doesn't it stand to reason that we'd have more regulations?

 

Are all regulations bad?

 

Is the word "regulations" just another in a litany of buzz words from Conservative wordsmiths like "BENGHAZI!!" or "Clinton Emails" or "Birth Certificate" that fail to have meaning, just induce feeling?

 

Why doesn't the article you linked have commentary from both sides of the aisle? Why just a conservative source for a Democrat president? Doesn't that seem a little red-flaggish to you?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know

Question # 1 Important only as comparison to historical trends and reflective in a loose sense to the # of regulations.

2. & 3. The world has always been complicated.

4. Not all regulation are bad of course. Many and perhaps most may be required to maintain a civilized society. Many however restrict liberty.

5. Regulations have real meaning and they have both positive and negative affects on society. Not all regs are created equal. Some are needed for the common welfare and some are an overreach of a massive federal govt.

6. I would say most articles linked on HB present one side of the story. I haven't seen you ask that of someone posting from Slate, Huffington Post, etc

7. Maybe that site was the only one willing to report it. Maybe the left leading sites didn't want to report something that would lead to questions about over regulations.

8. No - It is a factual article. If the Huffington Post had posted the information it would have remained as factual as posted by the Examiner.

 

 

1. So, not important (unless you're concerned with paper volume).

2&3 Yes, but that's hardly dispositive to this line of questions.

4. Some regulations restrict liberty, agreed. Which of the regulations submitted by Obama that this article discusses restrict liberty?

5. Which of the regulations are an overreach?

6. I ask for more information on all articles that seem to be rank bunkery, whether they are from the Washington Examiner, Slate or Huffington Post.

7. Maybe the article isn't substantive in any way.

8. There are no substantive facts in the article. It merely cites the number of pages submitted by Obama. Perhaps his regulation-writing staff is more verbose. That's a simple explanation that isn't in any way alarming. This article doesn't cover anything we need to know.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

The 2 for 1 regulation thing seems to me like red meat for conservatives just trying to get them fired up about cutting regulations.

Yes. Remember that what you are reading is a commercial. It's going to sound good.

 

Yes, however, after reading this article below, I think there is a need for regulation reform/cuts. Of course that has been a mantra for decades. I remember Al Gore was going to be the big regulation cutter as VP under Clinton.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-sets-new-record-for-regulations-527-pages-in-just-one-day/article/2607677

 

 

Why is the number of pages important? Aren't the actual number of regulations more important? What is the number of actual regulations issue by Obama, not just pages?

 

Has Obama issued more regulations than other presidents? Have we needed as many regulations under other presidents as we've needed under Obama? As the world gets more complicated and more things exist, doesn't it stand to reason that we'd have more regulations?

 

Are all regulations bad?

 

Is the word "regulations" just another in a litany of buzz words from Conservative wordsmiths like "BENGHAZI!!" or "Clinton Emails" or "Birth Certificate" that fail to have meaning, just induce feeling?

 

Why doesn't the article you linked have commentary from both sides of the aisle? Why just a conservative source for a Democrat president? Doesn't that seem a little red-flaggish to you?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know

Question # 1 Important only as comparison to historical trends and reflective in a loose sense to the # of regulations.

2. & 3. The world has always been complicated.

4. Not all regulation are bad of course. Many and perhaps most may be required to maintain a civilized society. Many however restrict liberty.

5. Regulations have real meaning and they have both positive and negative affects on society. Not all regs are created equal. Some are needed for the common welfare and some are an overreach of a massive federal govt.

6. I would say most articles linked on HB present one side of the story. I haven't seen you ask that of someone posting from Slate, Huffington Post, etc

7. Maybe that site was the only one willing to report it. Maybe the left leading sites didn't want to report something that would lead to questions about over regulations.

8. No - It is a factual article. If the Huffington Post had posted the information it would have remained as factual as posted by the Examiner.

 

 

1. So, not important (unless you're concerned with paper volume).

2&3 Yes, but that's hardly dispositive to this line of questions.

4. Some regulations restrict liberty, agreed. Which of the regulations submitted by Obama that this article discusses restrict liberty?

5. Which of the regulations are an overreach?

6. I ask for more information on all articles that seem to be rank bunkery, whether they are from the Washington Examiner, Slate or Huffington Post.

7. Maybe the article isn't substantive in any way.

8. There are no substantive facts in the article. It merely cites the number of pages submitted by Obama. Perhaps his regulation-writing staff is more verbose. That's a simple explanation that isn't in any way alarming. This article doesn't cover anything we need to know.

 

I like the bold. Funny. I got As on a lot of essay exams in college because I knew a lot of words to tell the story. We'll have to agree to disagree. I see # of pages as a pointer to # of regulations and the potential for over regs & restriction of liberty or overly burdening citizens and/or businesses.

[knapplc]

See, that's the thing. "Potential" isn't fact. It's possible the vast majority of those regulations make Americans' lives safer and better. Regulations have costs. Lack of regulations also has costs. What I don't see is any attempt to understand the balance between the two. All I see, and have for years, is "Regulations = Bad."

 

That's a logical fallacy from the start. Let's be better than that.

[TGHusker]

See, that's the thing. "Potential" isn't fact. It's possible the vast majority of those regulations make Americans' lives safer and better. Regulations have costs. Lack of regulations also has costs. What I don't see is any attempt to understand the balance between the two. All I see, and have for years, is "Regulations = Bad."

 

That's a logical fallacy from the start. Let's be better than that.

Knapp, don't disagree wt anything you said here. It is impossible for me or you as a 'lay person" to know what person are good or not. Of course I understand the balance between regulations or lack thereof. In previous posts I have said that the govt has an active role and part of that role is to foster an environment were businesses and individuals can succeed. That can be positive : creating regulations that reward business development through tax policy, via incentives, incubation programs, education etc. It can also be on the negative side: by not creating so many regulations that hinder business development (not thinking Koch Brothers type development here or wall street tycoons - corporate welfare type). Gov't's first role is the safety and security of its citizens - so with that comes regulations by default. The word "Regulation" is morally neutral. While potential isn't fact, we all know that the more of something, the potential exist that more unnecessary regs are introduced in that #. What that ratio is - I don't think anyone could tell you. Maybe former Senator Tom Colburn may have an idea. He tried to work very hard against govt waste and gave out awards for the most lame regulations & spending .

 

Frankly, I think it will be impossible for Trump and team to fulfill the promise of "Every new regulation, requires the repeal of 2"

 

 

 

MODS:

We are discussing this on two threads - the Obama Legacy thread and this one. IF YOU AGREE PLEASE CREATE A THREAD ON REGULATIONS AS A BREAK OUT FROM THE 7 POINT SWAMP SINCE REGULATIONS IS A PART OF THE 7 POINT PLAN

[Danny Bateman]

Trump poised to violate the Constitution his first day in office, George W Bush's ethics lawyer says

Drainin' that swamp!

Is this what they call... the pay to play?

Bravo, constitutional conservatives. Good choice.

[NM11046]

Trump poised to violate the Constitution his first day in office, George W Bush's ethics lawyer says

Drainin' that swamp!

Is this what they call... the pay to play?

 

Bravo, constitutional conservatives. Good choice.

Remember how the right flipped out about foreign officials donating to the Clinton Foundation? At least that was going toward good, social work. This just goes to line the Trump family pockets.

[teachercd]

Move

 

I am looking into another country. I will not be treated like this.