Trump issues pro small business EO with 2-1 repeal for new regulations


#1

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/30/trump-orders-two–one-repeal-all-new-regulations/97237870/

President Trump calls for repeal of 2 regulations for every new one. Looking to kick start small business.

“So the American Dream is back, and we are going to create an environment in small business like we haven’t had in many, many decades,” Trump said at the end of that meeting.


#2

This feels like it was crafted by an 8 year old.


#3

Did you read the whole thing?


#4

The WH has been awful about publishing these as they’re announced, don’t think the full text is out there yet.


#5

In that case, it might be more prudent to read the bill before making such a sophomoric comment.


#6

In a vacuum, the idea of requiring 2 “regulations” to be killed in order to introduce a new one is, on its face, absurd.


#7

lol, right!


#8

Well, it’s not a vacuum. You have to search and read.


#9

A- They haven’t published it yet, so its on the WH to be more transparent; and
B- Experts have decried this as “absurd” washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/30/trump-wants-to-cut-two-regulations-on-businesses-for-every-new-one-imposed/?utm_term=.8c4f0b424552


#10

One of the other things you have to do is be aware of the biases of the individual media in their reporting. For example… what is the Post’s agenda? Who owns it? What is his/her agenda?

Who are the experts. What stake do they have in the outcome?

All media is not created equal. You have to be an educated reader.


#11

And yet, I don’t need an expert to tell me that this idea is ridiculous.


#12

Seriously, the hysterics being played out there by “experts” is pretty amazing to me. It’s these knee-jerk reactions by the media that makes me want to give Trump’s supposed knee-jerk reactions a chance to succeed.


#13

Sarbanes-Oxley counts as how many regulations?


#14

Of course you don’t, you believe in Climate Change! Says it all


#15

That’s right. It does not take into account the value of any particular regulation on is merits. It just assumes - without looking in detail - that there must be lots of bad regulations, and we can look at the merits of those regulations when it comes time to go on the scavenger hunt to find the worst of the worst. So,yes. Childish and unthinking is a good way to describe this EO. If there are bad regulations he wants to get rid of, why wait until some new regulation is proposed to go looking for them? Why not do in now, independently of any new regulations? It is almost as if we have only so much shelf space in our federal library and when a new book comes in, we must find some old books to discard.


#16

Why do you say “experts”? Do you have evidence (and simply naming the paper is not evidence) to show that these individuals are not experts? Isn’t it possible that their expertise makes them capable of quickly assessing the quality of something in their field (as I am sure you can in your own field)?


#17

Then why did you bring it up? Seriously, you’re the one who’s acting like an 8 year old.


#18

I don’t think “experts” can quickly come to the conclusion they have come to. He just issued the order.


#19

Again, why “experts”?


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.