World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[CRTGAMER]

CRT, if you don't mind, would you please go back through that list of executive actions you posted and give your thoughts on each one? There are some I agree with, some I am neutral about, and some I vehemently oppose. I would appreciate knowing your thoughts on them. For the sake of conversation, I'm happy to share some thoughts. Sorry for taking so long, jp1.

I hope this helps illuminate my opinions, my friends. I realize that I don't have all the facts regarding these, so please consider all of my views tentative based on new information I may uncover or on how each order is carried out. It is also with some rueful irony that I note one of the criticisms the Republicans had regarding Obama's terms in office was his number of executive orders. While I still want my country to do well and for the president to succeed in building a better nation, the more days go by, the more I find myself taking issue with moves the Trump White House has made.

Thanks for sharing! So far only you and I have taken your Challenge.

Ack's Challenge

16. Two For One Regulation Reduction

15. Remove Lobbyist

14. Refugees and terror

13. Reshaping the military

12. Border wall

11. Deportations and Sanctuary Cities

10. Review manufacturing regulations

9. American steel in pipelines

8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure

6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines

5. Federal hiring freeze

4. TPP

3. Abortion

2. Regulation Freeze

1. Affordable Care Act rollback.

Agree the Executive Orders are piling up for immediate action, a risk of losing Congressional support of future policies if the senators and representatives are not given a chance to join in. The President is very adamant on the regulation cuts, he signed another order.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... egulations

Trump signs '2-for-1' order to reduce regulations
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order that would require agencies to revoke two regulations for every new rule they want to issue. The executive order is aimed at dramatically rolling back federal regulations, one of his top campaign promises. Senior administration officials touted it as the “most significant administrative action in the world of regulatory reform since President Reagan created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 1981." Trump on Monday said he wasn't done targeting regulations, reiterating his campaign promise to try and cut 75 percent of rules.

The U.S. isn't the first country to impose such a restriction on regulators. Trump could use similar policies in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as a model for his order. For every rule issued in the U.K., three existing rules must be eliminated. According to a U.K. government report, that requirement saved businesses £885 million from May 5, 2015 to May 26, 2016, or nearly $1.1 billion based on current conversion rates.

It is shocking how many Regulations are on the books. The XO order another immediate fix to big government.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642 ... residency/

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday. More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.

America’s problem with excessive regulation did not start with the Obama administration, of course. His predecessor George W. Bush was hardly a paragon of deregulation. Although Bush showed restraint during his first term, the number of regulations soared during his final years in office. Under the two administrations combined, their new rules added $176 billion in annual regulatory costs on Americans.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Trump signs '2-for-1' order to reduce regulations

Without getting into whether there is too much federal regulation - there is in some areas, there isn't in others - I will just mention that the "2-for-1" order is an incredibly stupid way to reduce the perceived burdens associated with federal regulatory compliance.

It is shocking how many Regulations are on the books. The XO order another immediate fix to big government.

I mean, seriously! Who cares what they say or what they do! There's just to darned many of them! And a small business obviously has to know the details of every single one if it is going to comply with the law! And Trump's incredibly bold, definitely-not-pandering-to-people-who-don't-understand-how-regulations-actually-work-but-have-been-conditioned-to-hate-the-federal-government-anyway move will surely get rid of all the state, county, and city ordinances that actually burden small businesses!

[Ack]

Trump signs '2-for-1' order to reduce regulations

Without getting into whether there is too much federal regulation - there is in some areas, there isn't in others - I will just mention that the "2-for-1" order is an incredibly stupid way to reduce the perceived burdens associated with federal regulatory compliance.

I'm curious about this one myself too, and I'd like confirmation on something that CRT posted:

The U.S. isn't the first country to impose such a restriction on regulators. Trump could use similar policies in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as a model for his order. For every rule issued in the U.K., three existing rules must be eliminated. According to a U.K. government report, that requirement saved businesses £885 million from May 5, 2015 to May 26, 2016, or nearly $1.1 billion based on current conversion rates.

My first question is "Did this really work out this way?" and my second is "What was the general response/fallout of such measures?"

Can any of our other members, particularly our folks in the UK, speak to this?

[CRTGAMER]

Trump signs '2-for-1' order to reduce regulations

Without getting into whether there is too much federal regulation - there is in some areas, there isn't in others - I will just mention that the "2-for-1" order is an incredibly stupid way to reduce the perceived burdens associated with federal regulatory compliance.

I'm curious about this one myself too, and I'd like confirmation on something that CRT posted:

The U.S. isn't the first country to impose such a restriction on regulators. Trump could use similar policies in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as a model for his order. For every rule issued in the U.K., three existing rules must be eliminated. According to a U.K. government report, that requirement saved businesses £885 million from May 5, 2015 to May 26, 2016, or nearly $1.1 billion based on current conversion rates.

My first question is "Did this really work out this way?" and my second is "What was the general response/fallout of such measures?"

Can any of our other members, particularly our folks in the UK, speak to this?

Curious what gets cut if a new regulation is implemented? I am guessing a similar set of regulations? The policy all pushing towards the campaign promise to eliminate 75% of all regulations; an effort to improve the economy.

[prfsnl_gmr]

My first question is "Did this really work out this way?" and my second is "What was the general response/fallout of such measures?"

Can any of our other members, particularly our folks in the UK, speak to this?

I studied law in the UK for a few months. (Study abroad! Yay!)

They just focused on reducing regulatory burdens generally. The "one-in, one-out" rule functioned more like an ethos. If you are serious about reducing regulatory burden, as the UK was when it implemented the rule, you should focus on the costs of regulatory compliance - which is often completely justified - not the sheer number of regulations.

(Also, I would also love to hear thoughts from our UK members on this. Studying somewhere for a few months is definitely not the same as living there, and I could have it completely wrong.)

[Blu]

I'll take the bait:

16. Two For One Regulation Reduction - Absurd notion. I doubt it will do what it intends. You can start with PAC's and soft money.

15. Remove Lobbyist - Not enough. It's a great idea and financial contributions to our electoral system are a pay-to-play type of governing. I have no proof that Rex Tillerson among others as cabinet members dispel the idea that lobbying is going to be a ting of the past.

14. Refugees and terror - We have a reputable system for refugees that allows for thorough vetting before the granting of any type of visa. However, not having senior leadership in the State Department does not make this task an easier one.

13. Reshaping the military - I do not believe we have much to worry about with reshaping the military. We have plenty of military expenditures, perhaps this reshaping can focus on the veterans in need that we have neglected to serve after fighting two decade-long wars.

12. Border wall - Needless spending. Beef up other avenues to enforce immigration law. I still believe in the rule of law and it should govern anyone who is here.

11. Deportations and Sanctuary Cities - Sanctuary Cities do not adhere to a litmus test regarding supremacy clauses. Oppressive state laws that limit cities from effectively governing their people should be taken to the Supreme Court. I hope that the injustices in which red states are trying to overtake such cities are met remedied and that the veiled reasons for why sanctuary cities are under fire can actually be ironed out with nuance and dignity.

10. Review manufacturing regulations - We should be considering that manufacturing jobs are not sustainable. The regulations however, should adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement, as it is founded in scientific, verifiable proof and fact that adheres to the scientific method.

9. American steel in pipelines - Don't care. DAPL and Keystone XL should actually be a rail system, since rails are proven 3x safer than pipelines for spills, allow for longer investment in permanent jobs, and allow for improvements in infrastructure that the common American can benefit from.

8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure. No. I'm all for expediency, but not at the cost of long-term environmental impact. Being close to our Great Lakes, anything that comes at the detriment to our clean drinking water is a nonstarter. Environmental reviews allow for oversight, information for the local citizenry, and advocacy for people over profits. This is an economic power grab by corporate interests.

6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines. Nonstarter, see #9. The pipelines are foolish and we should be looking to improve rail systems instead of more pipelines.

5. Federal hiring freeze - Moot. It will impact people who are recently hired and fall into the realm of being impacted. I can think of many people who were looking forward to governmental internships, but the freeze has all but cancelled that out. This executive order I hope sorts out the baggage though, as long as critical posts do not go unfilled.

4. TPP - Good, as long as there are no global ramifications in being able to shape our trade policy. Pay workers equitable, fair wages. TPP may or may not have done that. We certainly won't get back manufacturing jobs as a result of pulling out of it, nor were we going to get any if it went into effect.

3. Abortion - It's law. Put it to rest, allow for safe abortions for anyone who needs one. That's a broad interpretation. Broaden the options for anyone who's unsure. Make adoption easier. Make birth control not an issue of sexual promiscuity when it's a sexist double standard and is actually responsible when you're considering the burden on the state to take care of a child on various entitlement-related costs.

2. Regulation Freeze - Sorry, no. Regulations are actually an important thing and I think this gives far too much latitude to operate in while the freeze is in effect.

1. Affordable Care Act rollback. - There's been no alternative proposed for the past six years. Give ACA its criticism, but the 19% approval rating in Congress tells me they like to sit on their hands, and let the President be the one who calls the shots, when they have an equally important job on their hands. Single payer may or may not be the solution, but I doubt that Congress has done anything to put pressure on insurers or the business wing of the hospital system, to make the average American feel like they can go to the doctor for their health without going into debt over it.

[Sarge]

I do question whether it is valid to heavily weight bias toward the mainstream via whether a source is available in print/TV/radio, or its longevity. I'll delve more into the link when I have some time to do so.

I don't know that this is a measure that they are using to determine validity/merit, or at least I am not sure what you mean by this characterization of their methodology. Can you clarify?

Some of the reasoning on that from the article (that I very quickly and possible poorly summarized):

1.) Whether it exists in print

A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for several reasons. Print publication costs much more money, time, and effort to build than an internet one. Most print publications have significant numbers of staff members, including professional journalists. In order to have built a successful print publication, an organization will have had to spend time and effort building credibility among a significant audience. Reputation is necessary in order to have people buy newspapers for the purposes of getting the news. As a result of the above reasons, most print publications have longevity.

2. Whether it exists on TV, and if so, whether it existed before cable

A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for similar reasons factor #1 (print). Cable lowered barriers to entry for radio broadcast news.

3. Whether it exists on radio, and if so, whether it existed before satellite radio

A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for similar reasons factors 1 (print) and 2 (TV). Satellite radio lowered barriers to entry for radio broadcast news.

4. Length of time established

Greater longevity weighted sources somewhat toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias.” Longevity allows for the establishment of reputation (even a changing one) over time. However, newer sources can still be reputable and high-quality.

This explains a good deal why sources like the NYT, WaPo, and the major news networks reside almost dead center, when they likely belong a little more to the left.

[ZeroAX]

This explains a good deal why sources like the NYT, WaPo, and the major news networks reside almost dead center, when they likely belong a little more to the left.

You also have to know that if the article also has a European crowd, that the European political left is more to the left than the Democrats.

[Sarge]

True. However, from my understanding, this was composed from an America-centric view.

[CRTGAMER]

@ Blu - Thank you for the input on the Executive Actions. Great to read solid comments such as this to see specific details why some have issues with our President. This is how to judge President Trump, by his actions.

Sean Spicer Press Conference UNCUT Jan 30, 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVoA1GxOTT8

An announcement at the Press Conference made AFTER the Navy Seal Mission completed in the Middle East to capture intelligence in the battle against ISIS. Now that is how you announce a battle plan to the press. Most of the Q/A were on the Executive Actions. Good fire concerning double standards on Israel policy and the Immigration Ban of 2011 and 2017.

The 90 day immigration ban follows the past travel restrictions of the Obama administration as a prevention vs a reaction on terrorists. Personally I feel there will never be enough vetting to catch all the terrorists. So do we lose our privacy by allowing complete monitoring in order to be safe? It has already happened, gone are the days that bombings and shootings only happened in far away countries.