Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
temporal1
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby temporal1 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:40 am

Bizpac Review:
Another promise kept: Trump takes a buzzsaw to regulations and he’s very specific
January 31, 2017 | Frieda Powers | Print Article


President Donald Trump made good on another campaign promise by signing an executive order cutting U.S. regulations.

The order, signed by Trump on Monday, zeroes in on federal regulations by government agencies and requires cutting out two regulations for every new one being introduced, the Daily Mail reported.

“The American Dream is back. We’re going to create an environment for small business like we haven’t had in many, many decades,” the president told a group of small-business owners at the White House before signing the “one in, two out” plan which he called a “big one."

The order requires agencies to control budget costs for new rules, with exceptions for emergencies and matters of national security.

“We want to make … life easier for small businesses,” Trump said. “There can’t be any discrimination.”

The president added that he would like to continue by eliminating up to 75 percent of existing regulations that burden American businesses.

“This isn’t a knock on President Obama. This is a knock on many presidents preceding me –
this is a knock on everybody,” he said. “Regulation has been horrible for big business, but it’s been worse for small business.”

The president is “delivering on his promise to slash bureaucratic red tape that is choking our nation’s small businesses,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday, according to the Daily Mail.

“Under the president’s leadership, the federal government will no longer punish Americans for working and doing business in the United States,” Spicer said.

Business owners who met with Trump before he signed the order were grateful, noting how that have been “buried in a tidal wave of red tape,” as land developer Dennis Bradford said.

“Regulation has been horrible for big business, but it’s been worse for small business,” Trump said. “I’ve dealt with the small businesses and the big businesses, and I love you all the same.”
interesting math. 8-)
(i added bold+underlines)
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.” ― G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Affiliation: CMC

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby ohio jones » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:51 am

Which two regulations did he cut when introducing this one?
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

temporal1
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby temporal1 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:30 am

ohio jones wrote:Which two regulations did he cut when introducing this one?
good question. much could be cut over years with no evident change .. there is so much law, it's beyond comprehension. "representatives" (i use that term loosely) are known to sign laws, big and small, without so much as reading them. imho, dereliction of duty.

the math is encouraging. over years, it might actually begin to mean something.

example.
on the state level, Illinois lawmakers pass about 600 new mandates yearly. :shock:
they don't even work 12 months yearly.
that's roughly 590 more laws than necessary, in my personal rough estimate.
that does not include local or federal mandates.

'way too many law schools.
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.” ― G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby JimFoxvog » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:53 am

"Regulations" is such a broad term. I think each needs to be looked at individually.
Should there be a regulation that food handlers wash their hands after using the restroom? Should there be a regulation about cockroaches running around in a commercial kitchen?

But at our farmers' market there is a regulation we put out a hand washing station: a water container with a spigot and some paper towels. There is are clean open restrooms just across a driveway from the market that everyone uses.

A regulation regulating numbers of regulations makes no sense. To have a simple appeal process of regulations that seem senseless or overly burdensome would be helpful.
3 x

KingdomBuilder
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby KingdomBuilder » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:16 pm

JimFoxvog wrote:"Regulations" is such a broad term. I think each needs to be looked at individually.
Should there be a regulation that food handlers wash their hands after using the restroom? Should there be a regulation about cockroaches running around in a commercial kitchen?

But at our farmers' market there is a regulation we put out a hand washing station: a water container with a spigot and some paper towels. There is are clean open restrooms just across a driveway from the market that everyone uses.

A regulation regulating numbers of regulations makes no sense. To have a simple appeal process of regulations that seem senseless or overly burdensome would be helpful.


How about emission regulations? Regulations aren't what hurt common business... it's big business that hurts common business.
0 x
Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a Kingdom that cannot be shaken
Hebrews 12:28

Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby Judas Maccabeus » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:22 pm

JimFoxvog wrote:"Regulations" is such a broad term. I think each needs to be looked at individually.
Should there be a regulation that food handlers wash their hands after using the restroom? Should there be a regulation about cockroaches running around in a commercial kitchen?

But at our farmers' market there is a regulation we put out a hand washing station: a water container with a spigot and some paper towels. There is are clean open restrooms just across a driveway from the market that everyone uses.

A regulation regulating numbers of regulations makes no sense. To have a simple appeal process of regulations that seem senseless or overly burdensome would be helpful.


You really can't have people washing their hands to much. This does not seem like it would cost a mint.

Maybe a large jug of waterless hand cleaner would meet this need.

Seriously, food born illness is no trifling matter. People actually die from this kind of stuff. It is what separates the third world from the developed world.

J.M.
0 x

User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby JimFoxvog » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:35 pm

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
JimFoxvog wrote:"Regulations" is such a broad term. I think each needs to be looked at individually.
....
But at our farmers' market there is a regulation we put out a hand washing station: a water container with a spigot and some paper towels. There is are clean open restrooms just across a driveway from the market that everyone uses......


You really can't have people washing their hands to much. This does not seem like it would cost a mint.

Maybe a large jug of waterless hand cleaner would meet this need.

Seriously, food born illness is no trifling matter. People actually die from this kind of stuff. It is what separates the third world from the developed world.

J.M.

Sure, but no one uses the hand washing station. It's there, but everyone goes and uses the handy regular restroom.

But I agree it's better to have minor annoyances with extra regulations than to have the food borne illnesses.

If people cared about people and used common sense, many regulations would be unneeded. However, both conditions are often unmet.
0 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 1165
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby Bootstrap » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:22 am

Eliminating regulations is great if you eliminate the right ones. This hand-washing discussion is the kind of discussion you need to do it - which ones are really important, which one's aren't? Clearly, eliminating some regulations is really bad, eliminating others is extremely helpful.

I'd like to see a process where people evaluate the cost/benefit of each regulation over time, eliminating the ones that get in the way without providing much benefit. There are a lot of them. Most of them are the small ones that people don't talk about so much. But there's a lot of them.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

temporal1
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Affiliation: less than the least

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby temporal1 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:01 am

i believe trump is speaking to mandates that overload BUSINESS with red tape, and, with taxes and fees that increase costs, one on top of another.

regarding hand-washing:
the food industry has experienced horrible outbreaks of pathogens that sicken/kill.
none wants to be shut down due to illness/death. if no humanitarian conscience, it's bad math, money lost, sometimes, millions of dollars lost in recalls, lawsuits.

as ohio jones pointed out, the brief link did not describe specifics.

i am not Libertarian, some on forum have been, or are more interested in this than i.
however, they do have some valid points that cannot be denied.

this morning, i was thinking of how human laws are "hoarded" and hoarded, without any provision for cleaning out the "files." the buildings required to simply contain them are bursting at the seams. no one can claim to know what-all is on the books, it's too much .. yet, more+more is added every year, non-stop.

law makers are paid to craft law. as long as this is the formula, more law is what we'll get.

when representatives are known to "rubber stamp" law without so much as reading it - that's a problem. what are they there for? - i could rubber stamp laws, for a fraction of what they are paid! - any child could.

lawyers put themselves and their colleagues FIRST.
they all belong to a fraternity of lawyers, no matter which side of any case they happen to "represent." their legal brotherhood comes first.

the 2 for 1 policy makes a lot of sense when faced with cleaning up a hoarding process of decades+decades. it's a proven, reasonable method for reducing runaway clutter. there is little chance the U.S. will fall into lawlessness due to this policy. (just in this thread, several ideas for new regulations, right here!) :P .. we are all "crazy for law," aren't we?! :lol:

i hope 2 for 1 works well.
0 x
formerly Temporal1

“The most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.” ― G.K. Chesterton

Heirbyadoption
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Eliminate business regs, 2-for-1

Postby Heirbyadoption » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:15 am

“Regulation has been horrible for big business, but it’s been worse for small business,” Trump said. “I’ve dealt with the small businesses and the big businesses, and I love you all the same.”
Makes me all warm and tingly inside. 8-)

A regulation regulating numbers of regulations makes no sense. To have a simple appeal process of regulations that seem senseless or overly burdensome would be helpful.
With respect, an appeal process of regulation would bring it's own mountain of red tape and slow the process even more. The realistic and timely effectiveness of such a process seems questionable at best.
0 x


Return to “Current Events and Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests