Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505431)

Speaking of literally, what is "a regulation"? I missed the part of law school where you learn to count them.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505432)

Not to worry, I'm sure Miller and Bannon defined it clearly in the order.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505433)

So Congress passes a law, and an agency promulgates a regulation implementing that law. In Trumpworld, the agency repeals the regulation, but the law is still on the book. Do the Trump people believe that this takes the law off the books, or do they think we are all better off being subjected to (more general) laws rather than (more specific) regulations? It seems to me that businesses are worse off, not better off, because there is more uncertainty about how an agency or court will enforce the law, but maybe in Trumpworld the government sees that as a feature, not a bug.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505433)

So Congress passes a law, and an agency promulgates a regulation implementing that law. In Trumpworld, the agency repeals the regulation, but the law is still on the book. Do the Trump people believe that this takes the law off the books, or do they think we are all better off being subjected to (more general) laws rather than (more specific) regulations? It seems to me that businesses are worse off, not better off, because there is more uncertainty about how an agency or court will enforce the law, but maybe in Trumpworld the government sees that as a feature, not a bug.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505434)

You're thinking to deeply. It sounded good to him, so he said he'd do it. Then he did.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505435)

All this. And also, this type of approach will lead to more general (less specific and therefore less clear), catch-all regulations since new regulations will be required no matter what he thinks and the old regulations will just be built in to the new ones.

Our government is being run by a fucking child.

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505433)

So Congress passes a law, and an agency promulgates a regulation implementing that law. In Trumpworld, the agency repeals the regulation, but the law is still on the book. Do the Trump people believe that this takes the law off the books, or do they think we are all better off being subjected to (more general) laws rather than (more specific) regulations? It seems to me that businesses are worse off, not better off, because there is more uncertainty about how an agency or court will enforce the law, but maybe in Trumpworld the government sees that as a feature, not a bug.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505436)

Sounds like our government is being run by Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505435)

Our government is being run by a fucking child.

TM

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 505447)

I would like to think that Sessions, were he confirmed, might be able to prompt more thinking through of these things, but it is wishful, I know. But he would at least have a sense of the bureaucratic undertaking in implementing such matters.

I own my criticism of Obama regarding the excessive and improper use of executive authority by executive order and the overuse of his pen. I was joined by many Republicans in this outrage. I even think it's ok for something that lived only by executive order to die by it. But I am in the clear minority in pointing out the hypocrisy of whatever Trump is doing, just because he's Making America Great Again. I cannot decide which is the worst thing so far: the intentional exclusion of Jews from the Holocaust memorial statement that culminated today in Sean Spicer playing the victim; the crap can rollout of the immigration order; or the downgrading of the Joint Chiefs and director of National Intelligence on the NSC in favor of freaking Steve Bannon. It is clear that like the campaign, the Trump administration isn't rolling in competence.

If I had not already burned my GOP registration card, I would surely be doing it now.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 505449)

I actually think it's pretty easy to choose the worst, it being yanking the Joint Chiefs and DNI from the NSC and putting Bannon on. Sooooooo much bad shit can come from that. The courts are going to work on fixing his immigration snafus until Congress shows enough gumption to step in and actually address immigration broadly.

We are now watching people who have abstained from engaging in lawmaking for the last eight years saying "Oh, shit, immigration is hard... or Oh, shit, healthcare is hard" while a 10 year old sits in the corner saying, naw, this is easy, watch me.

As the great Greek/Egyptian/Turkish poet Cavafy wrote, the barbarians are, after all, a kind of solution.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505450)

Disagree. Congress will do nothing until a bunch of people die or Russia's ties are proven or all of Trump's corruption comes out. Then the Republican assholes running things will act like they're shocked and impeach the fuck out of him. Pence will step in and we will deal with all the same shit, but from a more competent administration.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505435)

All this. And also, this type of approach will lead to more general (less specific and therefore less clear), catch-all regulations since new regulations will be required no matter what he thinks and the old regulations will just be built in to the new ones.

Our government is being run by a fucking child.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505427)

Your inability to look past the very first level of this issue is fascinating. Although you seem to understand that technology has made whole industries outdated since the beginning of time, you simply cannot seem to comprehend that the fix in the current era is not protectionism, but evolution.

So you are absolutely wrong to say that we created this problem. Ty is absolutely right that Republicans have. If ditch digging with shovels is now obsolete because of earth movers, the correct approach isn't forcing industry to use workers with shovels. The correct approach is to teach those who used to dig with shovels to operate earth movers. This will necessarily mean there will be some shovelers who lose out. And here's the key (and you should unplug your ears now, so you can hear this): Those who lose out need to be trained in another field.

If you have a political party that feeds shovelers a bunch of bullshit about how they are going to protect their shoveling jobs while actively resisting investing in building the new industries as well as the training for modern options, that party is at fault.

Your solution of "placate them with some actual protectionism so you can capture their vote" is so fucking simplistic and short-sighted that I wouldn't understand how it was possible it could be made with a straight face if anyone else was proposing it.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505428)

This is absolutely, positively not true. You are, once again, completely full of shit.

Banks hate regulations because of two reasons:

1. They want to do whatever the fuck they want because the people making the decisions make their money on bonus system which means they have no aversion to risk.

2. They are extremely lazy.

Regulation isn't the problem. It's the target of greedy, lazy bankers who want to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can. And since they are almost always Republicans, as a pavlovian response they shit all over the regulation that aims to keep them from creating the same problems for everyone that they created in the lead-up to 2007.

TM