Trump promises to cut 75% of federal regulations

[WVex-pat in GA]

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?

So if a regulation keeps our environment safe and clean but doesn't contribute to economic growth we'll throw it out? I hope there's a shade of gray in some of these decisions.

BTW, I'm Libertarian.

 

[Boomboom521]

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.

You posted a video (maybe not you?) featuring Lindzen (who is funded by Exxon-Mobile). Dyson is a member of GWPF which also has questionable funding sources as uncovered by the Guardian. He also admits to man made climate effects, but feels the effects are probably overstated and has admitted to not knowing the complex future effects (if I recall correctly?). If your motivation wasn't so substantially economic, I would be more inclined to accept a neutral position. But most that deny climate science do so out of business motivation or leftist hatred spawned from conspiracy theories of global domination.

I believe you and a President Trump want what's best for the nation economically, but the effects of the repeals of some environmental regulations could be catastrophic and shouldn't be hastily removed to spur economic goals.

 

[WVPATX]

You posted a video (maybe not you?) featuring Lindzen (who is funded by Exxon-Mobile). Dyson is a member of GWPF which also has questionable funding sources as uncovered by the Guardian. He also admits to man made climate effects, but feels the effects are probably overstated and has admitted to not knowing the complex future effects (if I recall correctly?). If your motivation wasn't so substantially economic, I would be more inclined to accept a neutral position. But most that deny climate science do so out of business motivation or leftist hatred spawned from conspiracy theories of global domination.

I believe you and a President Trump want what's best for the nation economically, but the effects of the repeals of some environmental regulations could be catastrophic and shouldn't be hastily removed to spur economic goals.

I posted no video. And I can show you liberal foundation and liberal government funding research. This deal goes both ways. Far more money on the left.

I am a skeptic because the facts don't match the alarmism. The actual temps aren't matching the models. We don't know nearly enough about climate science. And we shouldn't destroy whole industries, nor punish energy consumers with higher prices, nor send money to 3rd world countries to keep them from buying fossil fuels, without lots more evidence.

The climate has warmed since we emerged from the Little Ice Age. How much is due to man? How much is due to natural variation? That's the question. Obama's own administration admitted that their now declared unconstitutional EPA regs that destroyed so many jobs impacted global warming by .001%.

We have to be smarter than this.

 

[WVPATX]

You posted a video (maybe not you?) featuring Lindzen (who is funded by Exxon-Mobile). Dyson is a member of GWPF which also has questionable funding sources as uncovered by the Guardian. He also admits to man made climate effects, but feels the effects are probably overstated and has admitted to not knowing the complex future effects (if I recall correctly?). If your motivation wasn't so substantially economic, I would be more inclined to accept a neutral position. But most that deny climate science do so out of business motivation or leftist hatred spawned from conspiracy theories of global domination.

I believe you and a President Trump want what's best for the nation economically, but the effects of the repeals of some environmental regulations could be catastrophic and shouldn't be hastily removed to spur economic goals.

Actually, I may have posted that video. But the point still stands that on both sides money is pouring in. As for Dyson, please provide a link to whoever is providing him funding for his scientific research.

as Dyson says, he is not sure why all the fuss about global warming. He said that in 50 years, the problem will solve itself with technology.

 

[Gurby]

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.

I think all of you are looking at this wrong. I think he is saying he will cut future regulations by 75%. I also think he will look at getting rid of some past ridiculous regs.

 

[WVPATX]

I think all of you are looking at this wrong. I think he is saying he will cut future regulations by 75%. I also think he will look at getting rid of some past ridiculous regs.

Actually, he has put a halt to all new regulations and said he will cut existing regulations by 75%.