It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former officials deride Trump's 'mindless' 2-for-1 deregulation plan

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Joan Claybrook, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the Carter administration, had an immediate reaction when informed Monday of President Trump’s executive order requiring that federal agencies scrap two existing regulations for every new one adopted.

She burst out laughing.

“That’s a completely illogical way of doing things,” Claybrook told me. “It’s going to harm the public. People are going to die if you start eliminating safety standards.”

Former officials deride Trump's 'mindless' 2-for-1 deregulation plan


[Trump supporter]

More fake news from the MSM. Trump's plan is mega-MAGA. Liberals know it, and they can't deal with the truth that's staring them in the face.

I'm so tired of their opinions. Is time for them to be shut down yet?

I'm starting to think the time has come for an executive order that officially tells the media to keep their mouths shut.

[/Trump supporter]

As entertaining as all of this is, let's not forget that people's lives are at stake. This is not reality TV.

The parts of this post within the "Trump supporter" brackets are satirical.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I nominate this for the Most Bizarre Thread of the Week Award
.

Like a piece of surreal art.


edit on 30-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Yeah, that is kind of laughable, I have to agree. If it actually is true that is. I would like to see the exact wording that says that. I won't believe this woman without evidence. Can anyone get an actual copy of the law as it is written for us to read?

This is here-say, not facts. It may be true, it may not. I highly doubt that Trump spoke to this woman in person. She is an ex....which means she may have got an interpretation from anyone, even a far left.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

mega-maga? that is lame. obviously not a centipede.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


news from the MSM. Trump's plan is mega-MAGA. Liberals know it, and they can't deal with the truth that's staring them in the face


I thought real liberals were for smaller government, less regulation....
Maybe that's liberals in other countries..

Anyhoo, from what I've heard over news etc, America has been massively over regulated, that businesses have pages upon pages of indecipherable legal jargon.
I'm almost sure they could find some unnecessary regulations to cut.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think that they just don't understand. From your article:

To scrap a regulation, a federal department or agency needs to notify the public, businesses, unions and others of its intentions, explain the rationale for the move, receive comments, and undergo the horse trading that typically surrounds decisions with potentially far-reaching ramifications. This can take years.


Emphasis mine.

Maybe that is the point, in order for them to add more regulations its going to take years for them to remove old ones. NO new stupid regs!





It's time to deregulate.


Although most notable regulations deal with complex financial transactions and environmental standards, there are plenty that are obscure, inane, and absurd.

Here are some examples:

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sets standards for “swimming-with-dolphins programs” which dictate: “[T]he ratio of human participants to cetaceans shall not exceed 3:1.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) bans certain kinds of “dive sticks” under the Federal Hazardous Material Act. Noting: “if a child jumps onto a dive stick in shallow water he or she may suffer severe injuries.”

If your alternative to dive sticks is lawn darts, you’re out of luck. The CPSC has banned those as well.



edit on 30-1-2017 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




Can anyone get an actual copy of the law as it is written for us to read?

The president cannot make laws.
But here is the EO.

Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

www.whitehouse.gov...

So, regulations about existing technology have to go away when regulations for new technology are written? Does this mean that self-driving cars will be unregulated, or that safety regulations for manual cars will go away? Or can any two random regulations be selected? One agency can target another agency?

edit on 1/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There are regulations that say exactly what size screw you use in assembling things. There are all sorts of tiny regulations they can drop to put an important one in. Simplification of the governments regulations doesn't mean there still can't be regulations that are imposed by trade organizations.

The emission standards on cars here are a joke, they go by the concentration of carbon in the exhaust, not overall carbon released by the vehicles. So a little foreign car getting a hundred miles per gallon can't pass emissions yet a car here getting twenty five miles per gallon can. If you cut the fuel consumption down to a fourth, there are less emmissions but a higher concentration in the little tiny bit of exhaust that is emitted.

I hope Trump fixes that, those European cars got a lot of pep and get way better gas mileage, but we have regulations that we can't let our cars be like that. We used to pump air into the exhaust back in the seventies on American cars.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
That "former officials" deride the idea is expected. They're the yahoos who implemented the regulations in the first place. They ARE the regulators.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Many regulations can be created independently from Congress



Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations. Below, you'll find a basic description of how laws and regulations are developed, what they are, and where to find them, with an emphasis on environmental laws and regulations.


Because those agencies are under the executive and they create regs w/o Congress, that EO may in fact have teeth




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I nominate this for the Most Bizarre Thread of the Week Award
.

Like a piece of surreal art.



theres a lot of tough competition for that category already this week.

but what is not making sense to you exactly. i agree with the regulation reforms on Trump's part, but dont you logically think there must be some caveat surely in certain situations?
can partisanship remove logic?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev




Many regulations can be created independently from Congress

Who said otherwise?

What I said is that an EO is not a law.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



The emission standards on cars here are a joke, they go by the concentration of carbon in the exhaust, not overall carbon released by the vehicles. So a little foreign car getting a hundred miles per gallon can't pass emissions yet a car here getting twenty five miles per gallon can.


Are you sure it's just carbon? Looks like there are other things. Are you sure about that "concentrations" thing? Looks like it's based on grams emitted per mile.
nepis.epa.gov...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse



The emission standards on cars here are a joke, they go by the concentration of carbon in the exhaust, not overall carbon released by the vehicles. So a little foreign car getting a hundred miles per gallon can't pass emissions yet a car here getting twenty five miles per gallon can.


Are you sure it's just carbon? Looks like there are other things. Are you sure about that "concentrations" thing? Looks like it's based on grams emitted per mile.
nepis.epa.gov...


It appears you are right, I guess they changed the way they collect the data now. Maybe that is why there are more foreign cars out there now. I haven't really checked on this stuff since the nineties, I guess they changed how it works.

The change occurred in 2004. Guess I am behind a little. well so are my cars, I own a ninety eight buick, a two thousand explorer, and an eighty four V10 chevy truck. The buick has seventy thousand miles on it, the explorer just turned over a hundred, and the truck has thirty four thousand miles on it. Boy, the miles are starting to get up there already. Another ten years and I might have to get some new vehicles. I also own a 67 buick electra, and a 47 dodge truck.

I am starting to feel old now, they don't seem very old.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

“That’s a completely illogical way of doing things,” Claybrook told me. “It’s going to harm the public. People are going to die if you start eliminating safety standards.”


Same could be said for the Protests Against President Trump's Recent Decision of Temporarily Banning Immigration from Countries that are Suspect of Harboring Terrorists .



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
As a wise ATS member continually points out.. The greatest flattery for any Donald Trump's policies, is when an official from a LOSER Democratic administration hates said policy.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Everything is the opposite these days, upside-down.

More is less, faster is slower, good is bad.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

The issue is that regulation is necessary. A business may not run if it has low safety standards, if it does not comply with the necessity of managing its waste correctly, and these things among others ARE absolutely necessary for proper management of a business. However, the LANGUAGE used to outline the law is probably very shoddy, overly wordy, written in legalese as opposed to English, and ought to be significantly simplified.

But removing regulations should not be on the cards, unless those regulations have been examined, in full (which takes years in most cases) gone over, and found to be of no benefit to the staff, the environment, or whatever else they are supposed to protect. Removing them by quota, would however, be utterly idiotic, and bound to cause larger problems than leaving the regulations alone would.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Oh yeah no need to lose profits by having to spend money to protect the people they sell things to. Profit is King, there are plenty of people to replace the ones lost. I see more of the Flint water scandals coming.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
Oh yeah no need to lose profits by having to spend money to protect the people they sell things to. Profit is King, there are plenty of people to replace the ones lost. I see more of the Flint water scandals coming.


I see a country much like China coming.

No environmental regulations.

No OSHA regulations.

No material and/or workmanship regulations.

Yup. Making 'Merika really Great Again!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join