Trump promises to cut 75% of federal regulations

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Starting with energy. What a great place to start. He is taking this right out of the Reagan playbook. Lower taxes, lower regulations, strong, stable dollar. I think 3.5% growth rates or more are very, very possible. We desperately need to get back to those growth levels if we hope to fund interest rate payments which are rising and to fund our entitlements.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/23/president-trump-i-plan-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent/

Some can be done by Trump's pen alone, others will require more work and perhaps even legislation.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
153
63
Starting with energy. What a great place to start. He is taking this right out of the Reagan playbook. Lower taxes, lower regulations, strong, stable dollar. I think 3.5% growth rates or more are very, very possible. We desperately need to get back to those growth levels if we hope to fund interest rate payments which are rising and to fund our entitlements.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/23/president-trump-i-plan-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent/

Some can be done by Trump's pen alone, others will require more work and perhaps even legislation.
More crazy talk by the new prez. He'll change a few things but it will fall far short of 75%. The number of regulations across all agencies/laws is a very big number and they aren't there by accident but I guess it makes a good (absurd) sound bite for Trump devotees as witnessed by this thread.
 

WVMade

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2016
1,221
0
0
Yeah Bone Spur also said he was going to release his tax returns and put Hillary in jail on day one. "Alternative facts"[roll]
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
153
63
Yeah Bone Spur also said he was going to release his tax returns and put Hillary in jail on day one. "Alternative facts"[roll]
and sue all the women who accused him of sexual assault but I guess he's giving them a pass as well [eyeroll]
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
The number of regulations across all agencies/laws is a very big number and they aren't there by accident
That is the ***** problem. Some of the regs were obviously made with intent to retard? What is so great about the number of regs coming from Agencies? That is a problem that must be addressed. Congress cannot appoint someone to head an agency and just turn them loose to write regs they want to enforce.
 

WVMade

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2016
1,221
0
0
True. I'm guessing you don't realize that Donnie Bone Spur is being sued for sexual harassment right now? That's an "alternative fact".[roll]
 

JMichael

Redshirt
Jul 7, 2001
619
3
18
Saying you are cutting a regulation without saying what it is, is not a good thing. I would like for my children to have clean water and clean air. Its just like the first day when he took money from the working class and gave it back to the banks so his friends could make more money.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
Starting with energy. What a great place to start. He is taking this right out of the Reagan playbook. Lower taxes, lower regulations, strong, stable dollar. I think 3.5% growth rates or more are very, very possible. We desperately need to get back to those growth levels if we hope to fund interest rate payments which are rising and to fund our entitlements.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/23/president-trump-i-plan-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent/

Some can be done by Trump's pen alone, others will require more work and perhaps even legislation.

He can't cut 75%. 20% would be an amazing figure to cut.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
More crazy talk by the new prez. He'll change a few things but it will fall far short of 75%. The number of regulations across all agencies/laws is a very big number and they aren't there by accident but I guess it makes a good (absurd) sound bite for Trump devotees as witnessed by this thread.

You usual, you have zero ideal what you are talking about. So many regs are ancient. They can be rid of very easily and quickly. Some will require regulatory changes which will take more time (e.g. holding hearings seeking public comment, etc). Still others will require legislation.

75% sounds very reasonable to me give all the garbage regulations we currently have.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
I was thinking 5% but only if he got rid of a whole agency or two. The CFR is a large document.

For example, does he want to get rid of ADA, trucking regulations, nuclear safety regulation, airline safety regulations, or current auto emission standards? Do we want raw sewage pouring into the rivers? There is generally a reason for regulation and that is because the regulated industries either refused to address an issue or performed recklessly in the past.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
He can't cut 75%. 20% would be an amazing figure to cut.

How do you know this? What info do you have that we don't have? I am certain you're speculating. I, too, am speculating. But I think we both know that we have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of regs that are simply outdated. We will have new department heads across his cabinet and I suspect their first set of actions will be repeal of regs that harm the economy. I still don't believe liberals think Trump will focus on jobs like a laser beam. He will, because he knows that is his key to reelection and to promises kept.
 
Last edited:

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
153
63
You usual, you have zero ideal what you are talking about. So many regs are ancient. They can be rid of very easily and quickly. Some will require regulatory changes which will take more time (e.g. holding hearings seeking public comment, etc). Still others will require legislation.

75% sounds very reasonable to me give all the garbage regulations we currently have.
The fact that you repeat Trump's % figure tells me that you have as much clue as he. There are so many thousands of regulations that aren't controversial or on anyone's radar. Scan through the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sometime, there's a lot in it. Sure he'll change a few things but it's just more hot air from you and him.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The fact that you repeat Trump's % figure tells me that you have as much clue as he. There are so many thousands of regulations that aren't controversial or on anyone's radar. Scan through the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sometime, there's a lot in it. Sure he'll change a few things but it's just more hot air from you and him.

Like I said to Original, pure speculation on your part or perhaps wishful thinking. You have zero idea. I have zero idea. But Trump is highly motivated to cut our massive lists of regulations. He has a pen. All of his cabinet will look for ways to cut regulations. Who knows it he gets to 75% or not, but I would not underestimate the regulatory changes we will be embarking on.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
We desperately need to get back to those growth levels if we hope to fund interest rate payments which are rising and to fund our entitlements.

This is an absolute MUST if we are to ever have a chance to reduce this massive debt we are strangled with. Not only is it important to fund entitlements, but the reduced pressure on bond markets and Government borrowing will free up private capital for future business expansion and job creation.

Lower energy costs will also reduce manufacturing and operational expenses for business which will free up even more capital for increased wages, & growth as well as lower prices for finished goods and services which improves GDP--- all of which feed increased revenues to the U.S. Treasury and helps us balance our budgets if we can control discretionary spending.

This is exactly the model Reagan pursued, and it led to the greatest economic expansion in this country since the end of World War II.

If Trump gets this right, he will seal his Presidency's success. I Pray he does. He's on the right track.

Go Trump.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
153
63
Like I said to Original, pure speculation on your part or perhaps wishful thinking. You have zero idea. I have zero idea. But Trump is highly motivated to cut our massive lists of regulations. He has a pen. All of his cabinet will look for ways to cut regulations. Who knows it he gets to 75% or not, but I would not underestimate the regulatory changes we will be embarking on.
He's got a pen and a phone...
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,604
457
83
How do you know this? What info do you have that we don't have? I am certain you're speculating. I, too, am speculating. But I think we both know that we have thousands of regs that are simply outdated. We will have new department heads across his cabinet and I suspect their first set of actions will be repeal of regs that harm the economy. I still don't believe liberals think Trump will focus on jobs like a laser beam. He will, because he knows that is his key to reelection and to promises kept.

I think you need to understand what you're talking about first. The CFR currently stands at something over 175,000 pages; cutting 75% would eliminate over 131,000 pages across all 50 sections of the CFR. It would be unrealistic even in Trump's reality that 75% of all regulations could be cut.

I deal with 21 CFR on a daily basis, regulations for Food & Drugs and it is cumbersome. However, if you cut even 75% of section 21 you'd leave the door wide open for all kinds of hell to break loose. To make a blanket statement of cutting 75% of all Federal Regulations is foolish.

However, if you insist on keeping up the charade of 75% cuts, when they get to section 21 you'd better watch out for that KoolAid you've been drinking.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
He can't cut 75%. 20% would be an amazing figure to cut.

If the media were responsible in its role to be our eyes and ears over Government largess they would regularly inform us of the needless duplication and futility of most regulations on the Federal register.

True, no one wants dirty water or dirty air, but that is not the default position of removing needless or business stifling regulations. The public is generally mis informed, or ill informed about the regulatory process, its intent, and most importantly its results. Trump and his reform team is diving deep into the Federal register to take a surgeon's scalpel to the regs that aren't working, or will not produce results because they're simply not needed.

Go Trump.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
How do you know this? What info do you have that we don't have? I am certain you're speculating. I, too, am speculating. But I think we both know that we have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of regs that are simply outdated. We will have new department heads across his cabinet and I suspect their first set of actions will be repeal of regs that harm the economy. I still don't believe liberals think Trump will focus on jobs like a laser beam. He will, because he knows that is his key to reelection and to promises kept.

I work in banking and there are obsolete regulations and other regulations that some might consider ineffective or unnecessary. Congress can do a lot of cutting here and still not hit 25%. Getting rid of just 10-20% would make bankers and their investors very happy.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
153
63
I think you need to understand what you're talking about first. The CFR currently stands at something over 175,000 pages; cutting 75% would eliminate over 131,000 pages across all 50 sections of the CFR. It would be unrealistic even in Trump's reality that 75% of all regulations could be cut.

I deal with 21 CFR on a daily basis, regulations for Food & Drugs and it is cumbersome. However, if you cut even 75% of section 21 you'd leave the door wide open for all kinds of hell to break loose. To make a blanket statement of cutting 75% of all Federal Regulations is foolish.

However, if you insist on keeping up the charade of 75% cuts, when they get to section 21 you'd better watch out for that KoolAid you've been drinking.
So true. I work with them too daily but trying to tell the king troll anything is an exercise in futility.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
You usual, you have zero ideal what you are talking about. So many regs are ancient. They can be rid of very easily and quickly. Some will require regulatory changes which will take more time (e.g. holding hearings seeking public comment, etc). Still others will require legislation.

75% sounds very reasonable to me give all the garbage regulations we currently have.
Says a poster that doesn't believe in man made climate change, and believes Exxon paid science over the majority of the field.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
I work in banking and there are obsolete regulations and other regulations that some might consider ineffective or unnecessary. Congress can do a lot of cutting here and still not hit 25%. Getting rid of just 10-20% would make bankers and their investors very happy.

This is true and probably more likely to start. But once you start, you can always go beyond whatever that line is. The key is to continue the streamlining until you get processes as lean and efficient as possible.

Money saved, is money earned.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
If the media were responsible in its role to be our eyes and ears over Government largess they would regularly inform us of the needless duplication and futility of most regulations on the Federal register.

True, no one wants dirty water or dirty air, but that is not the default position of removing needless or business stifling regulations. The public is generally mis informed, or ill informed about the regulatory process, its intent, and most importantly its results. Trump and his reform team is diving deep into the Federal register to take a surgeon's scalpel to the regs that aren't working, or will not produce results because they're simply not needed.

Go Trump.

Again I work in banking and if you think the media wasn't all over Dodd Frank you ought to go back and research it. They were. Your last sentence is EXACTLY what is needed. We need to get rid of obsolete and ineffective regs. No doubt. But the 75% comment is silly. It is going to be a herculean task just to review them all, let alone dismantle, reconstruct, and modernize them all.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
Again I work in banking and if you think the media wasn't all over Dodd Frank you ought to go back and research it. They were. Your last sentence is EXACTLY what is needed. We need to get rid of obsolete and ineffective regs. No doubt. But the 75% comment is silly. It is going to be a herculean task just to review them all, let alone dismantle, reconstruct, and modernize them all.

I agree...but that 75% remark was what Trump indicated he hopes is the ultimate goal. You're right we won't really know until we get deep in the weeds and see where the roots are, but I honestly would not be surprised to see 75% of regulations either eliminated or reduced to the point where they no longer stifle economic growth...which is the point of this whole exercise. We need growth and jobs period.

As for Dodd-Frank, it killed community banking which was the backbone of funding for small businesses which is where the majority of new jobs are created. That will also be reformed, if not re-written or replaced by either a new Law or new regulations.
 
Last edited:

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I think you need to understand what you're talking about first. The CFR currently stands at something over 175,000 pages; cutting 75% would eliminate over 131,000 pages across all 50 sections of the CFR. It would be unrealistic even in Trump's reality that 75% of all regulations could be cut.

I deal with 21 CFR on a daily basis, regulations for Food & Drugs and it is cumbersome. However, if you cut even 75% of section 21 you'd leave the door wide open for all kinds of hell to break loose. To make a blanket statement of cutting 75% of all Federal Regulations is foolish.

However, if you insist on keeping up the charade of 75% cuts, when they get to section 21 you'd better watch out for that KoolAid you've been drinking.

I am not a government employee, not have I ever been one, so I have no idea what CFR even means. But I do have a few questions. Trump did not say he would cut 75% of the current 175,000 pages of CFR. He said he would cut 75% of all regulations. Do all regulations take up the same number of pages in the CFR? If not, then your estimate of 131,000 pages cut is not a real number, right? Again, it might be, I don't know CFR. Perhaps you can help us understand.

And to be honest, all Presidents make blanket statements, even Obama. It is used to set a course of action. It tells the American people that we mean business. It sets a powerful goal. When Obama made his blanket statement that unemployment would never exceed 8% in his administration, was that a true statement? Or was there another purpose for that statement?

One more question, how many regs do we have that are over 25 years of age? How many over 50 years of age? Over 75 years of age? My guess is that we still have regs on the books that are very, very outdated.
 
Last edited:

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Again I work in banking and if you think the media wasn't all over Dodd Frank you ought to go back and research it. They were. Your last sentence is EXACTLY what is needed. We need to get rid of obsolete and ineffective regs. No doubt. But the 75% comment is silly. It is going to be a herculean task just to review them all, let alone dismantle, reconstruct, and modernize them all.

I completely agree with your analysis. But when we are in deep do do, we need herculean efforts to dig out way out. We must get back to real GDP growth of at least 3.5%. We have dug a deep, deep hole. Interest rates are rising. It will eat more and more of our budget. Big changes must be made to grow the economy fast enough to support our country and our needs.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Says a poster that doesn't believe in man made climate change, and believes Exxon paid science over the majority of the field.

First of all, when did I say anything about Exxon? You need to tell the truth. Secondly, I have said that the key question about global warming is man's role if any. I have said that repeatedly. And I am in pretty good company. Check out Freeman Dyson, for example (he is referred to as the Einstein of our age). He agrees with me. As do many, many other scientists. The science is not settled on this Boom, despite your snarky post.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
For example, does he want to get rid of ADA, trucking regulations, nuclear safety regulation, airline safety regulations, or current auto emission standards? Do we want raw sewage pouring into the rivers? There is generally a reason for regulation and that is because the regulated industries either refused to address an issue or performed recklessly in the past.

We do not "want" raw sewage pouring into rivers, or dangerous trucks, unsafe planes, or inefficient automobiles, or radioactive waste, or dirty air, or any of that!

We want growth...economic growth, wage expansion, budget and fiscal discipline, and a rising standard of living. There is only fear and gloom on the Left over what happens when some of these regulations are examined to evaluate both their effectiveness and necessity.

We can't get into it here but careful study of trucking regulations, auto emissions standards, even nuclear safety regulations with a totally objective review of BOTH their effectiveness and damage would reveal many of them to have been equally as harmful if not dangerous as they were in protecting the environment.

Ask truckers about the incredible fuel taxes they face, or automobile manufacturers who could have produced even more fabulous products for us at lower costs without all of the Government interference, or the outrageous costs of nuclear power plant construction and licensing, or the battles that have erupted over water and land use rights due to awkward and confusing regulations, or even construction costs and uneven accommodations for persons with disabilities due to a "one size fits all" mandate from Uncle Sam through the ADA. It's not all good for these onerous regulations.

We are compassionate, considerate and responsive people. Businesses want to serve their own needs, and also keep their customers happy. We do not want an environment that no one can live in and businesses are no different. We need common sense, reasonable, workable and e-f-f-e-c-t-i-v-e regulation and legislation that both protects our environment and helps grow our economy. Both can be done.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
I completely agree with your analysis. But when we are in deep do do, we need herculean efforts to dig out way out. We must get back to real GDP growth of at least 3.5%. We have dug a deep, deep hole. Interest rates are rising. It will eat more and more of our budget. Big changes must be made to grow the economy fast enough to support our country and our needs.

I think the biggest change in the environment is the incorporation of "pork" into every bill. Dodd Frank for example, a banking law, included a tremendous amount of unnecessary regulation and pet projects from law makers on both sides. The intent was sound, the product, maybe, not so much. That is one needed change. And then the process to take law and craft it into a regulation is loooong. Needs to be streamlined.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I think the biggest change in the environment is the incorporation of "pork" into every bill. Dodd Frank for example, a banking law, included a tremendous amount of unnecessary regulation and pet projects from law makers on both sides. The intent was sound, the product, maybe, not so much. That is one needed change. And then the process to take law and craft it into a regulation is loooong. Needs to be streamlined.

Changing Dodd-Frank will be hard. It is really hurting small banks. Stifling lending. But the GOP will need Dem votes in the Senate. Not sure if they can get to 60 unless a lot of red state Dems join them, perhaps along with Schumer since he gets so much money from Wall Street.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
Dodd Frank for example, a banking law, included a tremendous amount of unnecessary regulation and pet projects from law makers on both sides. The intent was sound, the product, maybe, not so much. That is one needed change. And then the process to take law and craft it into a regulation is loooong. Needs to be streamlined


I pretty much agree with this. If we just started there, and moved that process into the entire Federal regulatory register I think that is both worthwhile and needed.
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,604
457
83
I am not a government employee, not have I ever been one, so I have no idea what CFR even means. But I do have a few questions. Trump did not say he would cut 75% of the current 175,000 pages of CFR. He said he would cut 75% of all regulations. Do all regulations take up the same number of pages in the CFR? If not, then your estimate of 131,000 pages cut is not a real number, right? Again, it might be, I don't know CFR. Perhaps you can help us understand.

And to be honest, all Presidents make blanket statements, even Obama. It is used to set a course of action. It tells the American people that we mean business. It sets a powerful goal. When Obama made his blanket statement that unemployment would never exceed 8% in his administration, was that a true statement? Or was there another purpose for that statement?

One more question, how many regs do we have that are over 25 years of age? How many over 50 years of age? Over 75 years of age? My guess is that we still have regs on the books that are very, very outdated.

I'm not a government employee either, my company develops medical consumable products for hospital use. CFR means "Code of Federal Regulations" and, yes, all 175,000+ page of the CFR apply to every Federal Regulations on the books today... because it is THE BOOK. So I hope this does help you to understand and brings some scope to the issue.

Certainly many politicians make blanket statements that seem outrageous, and almost all of them end up getting called out for it eventually. The Donald seems to make the most outrageous statements and is called out on them nearly immediately; but you reap what you sow.

Also, and I was not a big fan of Obama either, the unemployment statement happens to be true, unemployment never rose above 7.8% nationally while he was in office. https://ourfuture.org/20141208/bush-vs-obama-on-the-economy-in-3-simple-charts

Are there outdated regulations? Certainly. But do they comprise 75% of all regulations? Unlikely. Most of the 50 y/o+ regulations that may need eliminated or changed probably comprise less than 5% of the CFR. So eliminating 75% of Federal Regulations throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
So eliminating 75% of Federal Regulations throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

So let's just get rid of the ones we can determine are not working or are not needed? That's really all Trump's reform crews are looking at.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I'm not a government employee either, my company develops medical consumable products for hospital use. CFR means "Code of Federal Regulations" and, yes, all 175,000+ page of the CFR apply to every Federal Regulations on the books today... because it is THE BOOK. So I hope this does help you to understand and brings some scope to the issue.

Certainly many politicians make blanket statements that seem outrageous, and almost all of them end up getting called out for it eventually. The Donald seems to make the most outrageous statements and is called out on them nearly immediately; but you reap what you sow.

Also, and I was not a big fan of Obama either, the unemployment statement happens to be true, unemployment never rose above 7.8% nationally while he was in office. https://ourfuture.org/20141208/bush-vs-obama-on-the-economy-in-3-simple-charts

Are there outdated regulations? Certainly. But do they comprise 75% of all regulations? Unlikely. Most of the 50 y/o+ regulations that may need eliminated or changed probably comprise less than 5% of the CFR. So eliminating 75% of Federal Regulations throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

You misunderstood my question or I posed it badly. You wrote this:

think you need to understand what you're talking about first. The CFR currently stands at something over 175,000 pages; cutting 75% would eliminate over 131,000 pages across all 50 sections of the CFR.

I asked you if each regulation had the same number of pages (we all know that is not true). So cutting 75% doesn't mean we cut 131,000 pages. It all depends on what regs are cut, how many pages long they were, etc.

As for Obama, you're dead wrong. As you can see, Obama's unemployment peaked at 10% and was well above 8 for a long period of time.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,604
457
83
So let's just get rid of the ones we can determine are not working or are not needed? That's really all Trump's reform crews are looking at.

And that's fine and should be done, but those may be well less than 5% of the CFR. It's the outlandish claims that have me on edge, makes me think that he doesn't understand the issues. And he has people working for him who repeated his outlandish statements and try to pass them off as Gospel. Just rubs me the wrong way.

If he had come out and made the statement you've made above, I'd have absolutely no issue. When are you running for President? You might get my vote.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
And that's fine and should be done, but those may be well less than 5% of the CFR. It's the outlandish claims that have me on edge, makes me think that he doesn't understand the issues. And he has people working for him who repeated his outlandish statements and try to pass them off as Gospel. Just rubs me the wrong way.

If he had come out and made the statement you've made above, I'd have absolutely no issue. When are you running for President? You might get my vote.

Did you think the same with Obama's outlandish statements? And I can relate many to you if you wish?
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,987
113
And that's fine and should be done, but those may be well less than 5% of the CFR. It's the outlandish claims that have me on edge, makes me think that he doesn't understand the issues. And he has people working for him who repeated his outlandish statements and try to pass them off as Gospel. Just rubs me the wrong way.

If he had come out and made the statement you've made above, I'd have absolutely no issue. When are you running for President? You might get my vote.

No... I don't want that job (President) not with the way some of you Dudes on the Left hate anyone who thinks Government needs to be downsized.

Look I am willing to be both pragmatic and idealistic about this. I'm not saying ALL regulations are bad, nor am I saying they're all needed. I'm saying we need a couple of fundamental principles in examining those to keep or ax.

Does it contribute to economic growth? (some control is good for growth) Does it help us keep our environment safe, clean, and well functioning for others to operate and grow in?

If we get a "yes" to both, OK keep that. A "no" on either or both, throw it out.

What's so hard about that approach?
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Not my favorite President either, so save your time.

Do you not accept my broader point. Wait. Once we know specifics (e.g. legislation, executive orders, eliminated regs, etc., then you can debate with facts rather than conjecture).