Trump tells business leaders he wants to cut regulations by 75% or 'maybe more'

a reply to: Tardacus

Completely agree with you there. Getting rid of some regulations may be beneficial, but wiping them out across the board can be dangerous.

I can't really comment too much about this because I do not know what type of regulations he is referring to.

I can comment on some regulations I do see as excessive though. I do not like to wear a harness and have ropes on all the workers when doing a roof, those ropes are a hazard to the workers. You cannot have just anyone working on a roof, it takes a certain type of person. If someone is not good at roofing, they should not be on a roof. It doubles the cost going from safe for a decent worker to safe for a moron who should be working with their feet planted on the ground. We took away the factory jobs and then make these trade jobs take twice as long to do and twice as expensive. Just get the factory jobs back and let the real roofers do their job. Sometimes you do need to use this equipment in very dangerous applications, but most times someone could fall because of the mandatory equipment.

That is just one example, I could tell you about lots of things, they are making a nightmare out of some of these safety issues. Osha gets money to fund them from fines on employers, if you argue with them they stick you with a bigger fine and shut you down. My cousin was a federal mine inspector, he told me quite a bit about this crap.

Continuing education now required to keep my builders license is a joke, I did the work for many years. I still keep it active and pay the sixty bucks for the class but all I learn from the class is that they are trying to refresh us on how to properly increase paperwork and make a two hour job take five hours of paperwork and extra filing charges to be legally done. I can change a garage door for a hundred fifty dollars labor, but now I would need to charge another forty bucks just to do the paperwork they require on the job. The customer also has to wait, I can't just go to the lumberyard that day and pick up a door and install it that day. These regulations are starting to suck both for the people and the contractor.

One thing I learned, I can roof a house without all those overly excessive regulations if I do not hire anyone to work for me. The regulations only apply to employees, why would someone want to hire an employee, two builders can get together and roof a house cheaper. They will probably have closed that loophole the next time I take my continuing education class in a few months..

It all depends on what regulations he wants to cut. Some regulations protect the consumer and the environment. We all know how removing regulations on the banking system almost caused the economy to collapse in 2008.

originally posted by: JimSmith
a reply to: EvillerBob

Me.

Do you think billionaire businessmen should be allowed to sell products they know are dangerous just to enrich themselves?

I'm pro-gun so, by definition, yes.

For items that aren't supposed to be dangerous, still yes. You don't stay a billionaire if people refuse to buy your products and victims keep suing you for death or injury resulting from your negligence.

The law already supports the concept of manufacturers owing a duty of care to end users. Piling more regulations on top is like passing laws to say that murder isn't just illegal but extra-double illegal.

originally posted by: JimSmith
Do you think billionaire businessmen should be allowed to sell products they know are dangerous just to enrich themselves?

That is why some regulations are very necessary.

Big Pharma has proven that those regulations are negotiable and, thus, worthless to the population.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Corporations with armies of lawyers can fight those lawsuits and destroy the plaintiffs. There has to be another way to stop them for deliberately harming consumers.

But I agree that more regulations are not the answer. I am just against wiping out all regulations without looking at them carefully.

Trump has said he hates monopolies, so we should be able to assume those kinds of regulations will be strengthened.

But anyone who is against deregulation has no idea how hard it is for small business.

Not everyone has the "employee" mentality. Some of us would like in on this American Dream, and we have the wits to do it.

We just need to be allowed to go out there without so many obstacles.

I'm talking about honest business, by the way. Buyer Beware is a mantra, not a law, and that's the way it should be.

You make bad purchase? You learned your lesson. Think before you act.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Yay, now shoot for 100% and we'll be on the right road.

Do you like eating beef with human body parts in it? Or you don't mind if the waiter serving your food just got done taking a messy crap and didn't wash his hands before serving you food?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

You make bad purchase? You learned your lesson. Think before you act.

Easier said than done if there are no regulations mandating truth in advertising.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Yay, now shoot for 100% and we'll be on the right road.

Do you like eating beef with human body parts in it?

Do you like eating things that claim there is nothing wrong, yet there is?

You think they're not lying to you? Reality check. Want safe food, do your research.

Or be like me and just eat, knowing food isn't an anti-death treatment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Yay, now shoot for 100% and we'll be on the right road.

Do you like eating beef with human body parts in it? Or you don't mind if the waiter serving your food just got done taking a messy crap and didn't wash his hands before serving you food?

Well, the server question is a local enforcement issue, not a federal regulation one, so...

The other question is too ridiculous to warrant a response.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

You make bad purchase? You learned your lesson. Think before you act.

Easier said than done if there are no regulations mandating truth in advertising.

If you base your purchases in advertising, then you are contributing to the problem.

I don't need to be told what I need. I know it when I need it.

I sell to my clients by my actions. Nothing flashy - just results.

I suggest you guy get into the trades industry.
When the workers are complaining and moaning about ridiculous safety protocol there may be a problem. more and more completely pointless paperwork.

I don't know how office workers could understand.

states and counties have their own regulations as it is. You guys do know that right?

a reply to: jellyrev

Dealt with that too.

When I worked logistics, I wasn't allowed to have a water bottle. "Workplace safety".

Proceeded to let the Manager know just what I thought of that.

Got fired on the day of my promotion because I was an usurper.

Over more than a water bottle, but all the disagreements were on that level.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: xuenchen

How can you launch a "massive" de-regulation program, that is "just as protective"? Lol, have your cake and eat it too?

De-regulation of the financial markets almost collapsed the global economy (and still could at some point in the future).

"Word magic", a favorite tool by puppet-politicians and their spokespeople

Anyone who works regulatory in some way can tell you that there is a lot of overlap and redundancy across all the different agencies. There is plenty of room to remove a LOT of the burden without losing a LOT of the essential protections.

Thatbeing said, I doubt we're going to reach a full 75%. I`m guessing that Trump's opening number in his negotiation process.

a reply to: ketsuko

I wouldn't say a lot of protections are necessary.

Maybe a class on how to be more intelligent and less domineering. That would help both sides of middle management, assuming people gave a damn.

Wouldn't it be great? This is ETA:

Workers get smarter and bosses motivate.

Ingenious. Simple.

Ah, but alas, there is the problem of those who revel in strife.

a reply to: neo96

It is cheaper to make in China. But they sell expensive in the US.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: xuenchen

Without knowing specifically what regulations are on the chopping block, I don't see how anyone can form an informed, educated opinion.

Agree. My guess is he is looking at some environmental regs as well as regs on finance. Dodd-Frank has been a disaster.

I see. So, you want to reinstate Glass-Steagall them? What about the Volcker Rule?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I am thinking about this from my husband's persepctive and he works veterinary pharma. He deals with no less than five or maybe six different regulatory agencies.

I don't know how many protections you exactly want removed although there are some that could easily be removed because they can actuallymake product more dangerous/less effective (some of the recent regulators have a more is better attitude and that isn't always good with vaccines), but between all those agencies a lot of the rules end up being more or less redundant and they have to fill out a lot of things for all those agencies that it would be easiest to just do the test or standard once for one agency instead of sometimes multiple times and fill out multiple paperwork ...

Well according to George Carlin America's major export is bulldust,so I am very bullish,the next 4 years I expect exports to go biblical.