Trump - Eliminate 2 regulations for every new regulation

Trump should sign an EO making Pluto a planet again.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

In Trump's EO, does it provide guidelines for deciding which regulations need to be dumped, such as a measurement of effectiveness, overall impact, etc? Or perhaps it's up to the bureaucrats to do whatever they want?

I think this EO should have been thought-out a bit more, even though I can agree with less regulations.

As with other things, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to establish which agencies can be trusted to be given a direction and left to get on with things, or which agencies will need you to divert your time and attention into fixing them, this degree of freedom could become an interesting test.

I think Trump is going to spend the next few months weeding out the problems - and a practical test like this is far more useful and produces more actionable information than commissioning an independent investigator to spend the next 24 months and millions of dollars writing a 30,000 page report.

The goal is to achieve less regulation while maintaining those that serve purpose. That is achieved by making calculated moves.

A simple 2 for 1, free-for-all does not assist in achieving that goal.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EvillerBob

As with other things, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to establish which agencies can be trusted to be given a direction and left to get on with things, or which agencies will need you to divert your time and attention into fixing them, this degree of freedom could become an interesting test.

I think Trump is going to spend the next few months weeding out the problems - and a practical test like this is far more useful and produces more actionable information than commissioning an independent investigator to spend the next 24 months and millions of dollars writing a 30,000 page report.

The goal is to achieve less regulation while maintaining those that serve purpose. That is achieved by making calculated moves.

A simple 2 for 1, free-for-all does not assist in achieving that goal.

Is it, though? Well, certainly as an overall plan, but is that what this step is aimed towards?

There's something that is often used in business. When some new intern or new hire comes in, they get set a task. The task isn't necessarily important to the overall running of the business, but it's used to assess how the new guy handles the challenge.

I think he's essentially putting the various agencies "on probation" and giving them a challenge to see how they handle it. If they achieve the outcome - great! - but the real purpose is to assess how they handle it.

so then eventually this Admin would be eliminating regulations it passed in order to eliminate two other old regs.

what a farce.
i got my popcorn ready.

I wonder if a loophole around this is to include the older two regulations along with the language of the new one being created?

Ooops, I shouldn't have given anyone that idea.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

This is a dumb and lazy way to tackle government over-regulation.

then why don't you run for president, and show everyone how smart you are and do it the right way, since you know best, and it's just easier to call what the president did dumb and lazy. I doubt you know as much or even close to about business than the president, so you should sit down, watch, and learn. You're not a mind reader, nor a psychic, and have no idea how this will turn out, so why don't you give it a chance.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

In Trump's EO, does it provide guidelines for deciding which regulations need to be dumped, such as a measurement of effectiveness, overall impact, etc? Or perhaps it's up to the bureaucrats to do whatever they want?

I think this EO should have been thought-out a bit more, even though I can agree with less regulations.

As with other things, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to establish which agencies can be trusted to be given a direction and left to get on with things, or which agencies will need you to divert your time and attention into fixing them, this degree of freedom could become an interesting test.

I think Trump is going to spend the next few months weeding out the problems - and a practical test like this is far more useful and produces more actionable information than commissioning an independent investigator to spend the next 24 months and millions of dollars writing a 30,000 page report.

The goal is to achieve less regulation while maintaining those that serve purpose. That is achieved by making calculated moves.

A simple 2 for 1, free-for-all does not assist in achieving that goal.

(sigh) another idiot on here who doesn't give things a chance, or really knows whats going on here. regulations are killing this country, but you are too blind to see that. Its not like its a blind 2 for 1 thing, do you think they would really do that? pull your head out fool.....

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

This is a dumb and lazy way to tackle government over-regulation.

then why don't you run for president, and show everyone how smart you are and do it the right way, since you know best, and it's just easier to call what the president did dumb and lazy. I doubt you know as much or even close to about business than the president, so you should sit down, watch, and learn. You're not a mind reader, nor a psychic, and have no idea how this will turn out, so why don't you give it a chance.

Um... No... I can look at a procedure and logically make a prediction based on logical analysis and statistics on how it will turn out, and there is nothing logical about tasking an inefficient government office to self-audit to clean house. And that is just looking at a random government agency. That says nothing about where Trump pulled that ratio of 2:1 regulations from since there is no way that each government agency is equally weighed down by the same numbers of useless regulations.

Like I said, this is dumb and lazy. There are MUCH more efficient ways to go about this and I don't need to run for President to see that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

This is a dumb and lazy way to tackle government over-regulation.

then why don't you run for president, and show everyone how smart you are and do it the right way, since you know best, and it's just easier to call what the president did dumb and lazy. I doubt you know as much or even close to about business than the president, so you should sit down, watch, and learn. You're not a mind reader, nor a psychic, and have no idea how this will turn out, so why don't you give it a chance.

Um... No... I can look at a procedure and logically make a prediction based on logical analysis and statistics on how it will turn out, and there is nothing logical about tasking an inefficient government office to self-audit to clean house. And that is just looking at a random government agency. That says nothing about where Trump pulled that ratio of 2:1 regulations from since there is no way that each government agency is equally weighed down by the same numbers of useless regulations.

Like I said, this is dumb and lazy. There are MUCH more efficient ways to go about this and I don't need to run for President to see that.

Ok genius, what is a more efficient way?

I can tell you from working in a heavily regulated industry that it can literally take DECADES to get rid of one stupid and ineffective regulation. You can have the entire industry screaming at the top of their lungs, reams of data and paper work showing the regulation doesn't make any sense and get no where with these bureaucracies. I've seen it with my own eyes.

a reply to: Edumakated

First, it isn't my job to come up with the solution. Though off the top of my head, I'd at the VERY least have an independent organization audit the regulations to determine which ones are useless and which ones are necessary.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

First, it isn't my job to come up with the solution. Though off the top of my head, I'd at the VERY least have an independent organization audit the regulations to determine which ones are useless and which ones are necessary.

Ahh... so the first step is to make government bigger?

Or, Trump could introduce an immediate culture change by making a regulation a pain in the backside to pass. Things that need to be done will still get done. It's an effective self-braking system without blocking everything indiscriminately.

I don`t know if this has been brought up yet but,this 2 for 1 thing can be and WILL be abused.

issue a meaningless petty regulation and remove 2 effective and meaningful regulations that big corporations don`t like.

lets take fracking for example, I`m sure there are regulations that the fracking industry doesn`t like and want to get rid of, a little palm greasing and lobbying to the right people and presto 2 of those regulations that are limiting their profits suddenly disappear and are replaced with 1 worthless and ineffective regulation.

a reply to: EvillerBob

An independent organization could very well be a company (or two for multiple opinions) you pay for an audit. You don't have to necessarily expand government to get one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

First, it isn't my job to come up with the solution. Though off the top of my head, I'd at the VERY least have an independent organization audit the regulations to determine which ones are useless and which ones are necessary.

absolutely,

if you put an oil man in charge of the EPA and tell him "you can get rid of 2 regulations for every new regulation you can make up" that`s asking for trouble.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm all for less regulation when it does not serve a logical purpose or does not produce a favorable result, but I don't buy it being an area in which waters are tested and "probations" are played-out.

a reply to: gunshooter

Ah, yes. I'm a blind idiot that doesn't know what's going on because my head is up my ass.

Perhaps you should try to change my mind using a good argument, instead of insults.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvillerBob

An independent organization could very well be a company (or two for multiple opinions) you pay for an audit. You don't have to necessarily expand government to get one.

It leads to consultations, fees, budgets, liaisons, milestones... he's a businessman, he knows exactly what would happen when you start chumming the water around the audit sharks.

This makes an immediate impact. Auditing might well follow, but if you sit around and wait for it to finish, we'll all be long dead before those audit companies have finished milking the fees out of the government.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvillerBob

An independent organization could very well be a company (or two for multiple opinions) you pay for an audit. You don't have to necessarily expand government to get one.

That has been done before... it still can take decades for a bureaucracy to act to remove / amend ineffective regulations.

As I stated, I saw it in my own industry where there was study after study from independent sources clearly showing some regulations to be ineffective and doing nothing except confusing consumers yet the bureaucracy literally took almost 20 years to change the regulation.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

Heh, You never know! he has mentioned space here and there hasn't he? I'm not sure if I dreamt it, but I think I heard him mention wanting to get on with new space endeavours/frontiers in one of his trademark bullet point list speeches. So you never know. If that's true then he's clearly thinking about things in Pluto's direction... I reckon, alongside everything else at the moment, something nice for the US space program might be slipped in. It's an industry, it's a business, a pioneering one, and very much one with longevity. So I'm sure he's eyeing it up in some respects haha. Reclassifying Pluto as a planet is a-ok and a good start to me "make pluto planetary again" has trending capability!

And LOL the space-ships of the future (present timeline not verified). These elegant sleek delta wing SpaceX things flying around, and then this gigantic Trump Industries freighter will rattle past... If liberal media hasn't destroyed us before then.

a reply to: markymint

Sounds like the making of a White House Petition!