• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
82,404
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections

By Elliot Negin
12.28.2017

635894298711398370782344430_donald%20trump%20stank%20face.jpg


President Trump wants to set the regulatory clock back to 1960, and last week he acted it out for the cameras. Wielding a pair of golden scissors at a White House photo op, he cut red tape strung around two stacks of paper. One was a small pile of some 20,000 pages representing the amount of regulations in 1960; the other a mound of more than 185,000 pages representing those of today. “We’re getting back below the 1960 level,” Trump declared, “and we’ll be there fairly quickly.” There’s only one problem. That mountain of paper Trump used as a prop symbolizes hard-won measures that protect us. To refresh the president’s memory, back in the 1960s, smog in major U.S. cities was so thick it blocked the sun. Rivers ran brown with raw sewage and toxic chemicals. Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River and at least two other urban waterways were so polluted they caught on fire. Lead-laced paint and gasoline poisoned children, damaging their brains and nervous systems. Cars without seatbelts, airbags or safety glass were unsafe at any speed. And hazardous working conditions killed an average of 14,000 workers annually, nearly three times the number today. In response, Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and other landmark pieces of legislation to protect public health and safety. Some of those laws also created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Highway Traffic Safety Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other federal agencies to write and enforce safeguards.

None of those laws, or the regulations they spawned, existed in 1960. Fortunately, it will be very difficult for the Trump administration to roll back 50 years’ worth of congressionally mandated rules protecting the public from industrial poisons, harmful drugs, adulterated food and defective products. In the meantime, the Trump administration is resorting to the next best—or worst—thing, depending on your perspective: It has cut back dramatically on enforcing environmental laws. In an apparent attempt to blunt criticism, Trump acknowledged at last week’s photo op that purging a half century of protections could have an adverse impact, and he assured Americans that he would not let that happen. “We know that some of the rules contained in these pages have been beneficial to our nation, and we’re going to keep them,” he said. “We want to protect our workers, our safety, our health, and we want to protect our water, we want to protect our air, and our country’s natural beauty.” Somehow, I’m not convinced. Given the president’s penchant for lying, his administration’s abysmal track record, and now his avowed intention to kill nearly 90 percent of federal regulations, the smoke Trump is blowing is as thick as 1960s New York smog.
Click to expand...

Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will certainly slash away at 50 years of environmental/safety protections to please their corporate donors/lobbyists.

Related: Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on Enforcement Officers - The New York Times

E.P.A. Threatens to Stop Funding Justice Dept. Environmental Work - The New York Times
 
who needs clean air when you can breathe **** & who needs clean water when you can drink ****?
 
people-have-expressed-concern-with-trump-picking-hexxus-the-pollution-8527357.png
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections



Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will certainly slash away at 50 years of environmental/safety protections to please their corporate donors/lobbyists.

Related: Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on Enforcement Officers - The New York Times

E.P.A. Threatens to Stop Funding Justice Dept. Environmental Work - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Well, those regulations are part of the reason wages have not increased as much as many would have wanted. You cannot have your cake and eat it, you know.
 
Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections
Click to expand...

i'm looking forward to cooking marshmallows by the river firelight.

river.jpg

ah, the good ol' days.
 
worksforpigs said:
Where did Trump appoint a corporation to run the EPA? Let's see you're cite. Accusatory memes isn't it.
Click to expand...

I can understand not knowing who Hexxus is, but the picture should have been a hint it is a fictional being, and thus a joke.
 
joG said:
Well, those regulations are part of the reason wages have not increased as much as many would have wanted. You cannot have your cake and eat it, you know.
Click to expand...

Can you cite your evidence for that claim?

Thanks!
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I can understand not knowing who Hexxus is, but the picture should have been a hint it is a fictional being, and thus a joke.
Click to expand...

Of course it was a joke. So is the actual head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, but not a very funny one.
 
If this does happen a lot of people are going to find out the hard way why these protections were created.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections



Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will certainly slash away at 50 years of environmental/safety protections to please their corporate donors/lobbyists.

Related: Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on Enforcement Officers - The New York Times

E.P.A. Threatens to Stop Funding Justice Dept. Environmental Work - The New York Times
Click to expand...

What makes these guys think all of the regs Trump is dumping have to do with EPA?
 
JasperL said:
Can you cite your evidence for that claim?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Probably I could find a couple of hundred articles that show how varying regulation adds to the cost of this, that and the other poduction or other economic process. You see, it is elementary economics that a great deal of regulation is required because it is less expensive for the economic subject to act otherwise. If it made economic sense for him to act as in the regulation, the regulation would not be necessary.

The other important item is that increasing the cost of production in one jurisdiction and not in the other makes it rational to produce in the other jurisdiction. Much of the outsourcing to India, China or Vietnam is dor this reason as much as for the more competitive labour.
 
joG said:
Well, those regulations are part of the reason wages have not increased as much as many would have wanted. You cannot have your cake and eat it, you know.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Environmental protections are not drags on the economy. Quite the opposite. They produce new products for needed markets. Before the regulations mandating that cars have less harmful exhaust, nobody was ever employed manufacturing catalytic converters. Now, that, and other similar products employ many thousands if not hundreds of thousands. The solar industry employment is ten times that of coal employment.
 
MTAtech said:
Baloney. Environmental protections are not drags on the economy. Quite the opposite. They produce new products for needed markets. Before the regulations mandating that cars have less harmful exhaust, nobody was ever employed manufacturing catalytic converters. Now, that, and other similar products employ many thousands if not hundreds of thousands. The solar industry employment is ten times that of coal employment.
Click to expand...

Compliance costs money.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...he-epa-is-not-the-fourth-branch-of-government

Here's One Example Of Regulations Killing A Small Business - Business Insider

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/obamas-regulations-in-2016-to-drain-economy-by-2-t/
 
joG said:
Probably I could find a couple of hundred articles that show how varying regulation adds to the cost of this, that and the other poduction or other economic process. You see, it is elementary economics that a great deal of regulation is required because it is less expensive for the economic subject to act otherwise. If it made economic sense for him to act as in the regulation, the regulation would not be necessary.
Click to expand...

Then cite a few so we know how much regulation reduces wages. Is it by cents per hour or dollars per hour? The research I've seen is that, in short, it depends. Just for example, for some reason wages in the highly regulated industrialized countries are higher than in China, Vietnam, etc. Even in this country, the lightly regulated deep south has lower wages than the highly regulated states along the coasts, so if there is a causal relationship, "regulations" are one of many factors affecting wages, and those other factors appear to dominate, with "regulations" playing a minor role.

There is also no doubt 'regulations' increase the costs of dirty industries, but what they really do is appropriately assign costs to being dirty, as opposed to a system where the dirty industries are allowed to offload those costs onto others - negative externalities. But killing off (in the case of environmental regs) dirty industries in favor of more efficient, cleaner industries doesn't necessarily imply a lowering of wages or loss of jobs.

The other important item is that increasing the cost of production in one jurisdiction and not in the other makes it rational to produce in the other jurisdiction. Much of the outsourcing to India, China or Vietnam is dor this reason as much as for the more competitive labour.
Click to expand...

That's true, or it at least is arguably true, but that's not an argument against 'regulation' but the failure of regulations, or in the alternative property rights, in those jurisdictions. China, for example, allows a billion+ people to pay the high costs of filthy air and water for the temporary benefit of manufacturers and coal fired plants producing cheap energy because the government in China has decided it's OK to kill a half million/year as the cost of economic growth and the people have no rights to sue or otherwise defend their rights.

In this country, regulations or not, we're not going back to flaming rivers and cities so polluted you can't see across the street.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump vows to kill 50 years of federal protections



Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will certainly slash away at 50 years of environmental/safety protections to please their corporate donors/lobbyists.

Related: Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on Enforcement Officers - The New York Times

E.P.A. Threatens to Stop Funding Justice Dept. Environmental Work - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Hyperbole aside, it sound like a good start. Get rid of the bad rules, keep the good ones.

We know that some of the rules contained in these pages have been beneficial to our nation, and we’re going to keep them,” [Trump] said. “We want to protect our workers, our safety, our health, and we want to protect our water, we want to protect our air, and our country’s natural beauty.”
Click to expand...
 
Getting rid of regulations is a lot like getting rid of traffic lights. On the one hand, having too many traffic lights in places that they aren't needed slows traffic and contributes to accidents. On the other hand, not having traffic lights where they are needed also slows traffic and contributes to accidents.

Trying to pare back regulations to what existed years in the past is a lot like taking out all of a town's traffic lights that weren't there thirty or forty years ago without regard for the changing traffic patterns over that time.

Imagine how it would be driving through your town with only the traffic lights that existed back in 1960.
 
MTAtech said:
Baloney. Environmental protections are not drags on the economy. Quite the opposite. They produce new products for needed markets. Before the regulations mandating that cars have less harmful exhaust, nobody was ever employed manufacturing catalytic converters. Now, that, and other similar products employ many thousands if not hundreds of thousands. The solar industry employment is ten times that of coal employment.
Click to expand...

If you have to make three machines to make a product, the costs go up and your jellybean costs more too. Your theory is that this increases GDP and is so positive. Increase the number of machines required to make your jellybean and the economy grows further and further with each piece of ne regulation. The society grows more and more, creates jobs and wages.

You miss that you still only have only one jellybean but are investing in many more machines than the one single one you used originally. The price of you jellybean now has to cover the cost of producing and running all tjos machines you use the make jellybean making environmentally friendly, all those wonderful wages.

You will no longer be in the class of folks that have a bowel of colourful beans on the coffee table, if you a worker in that now environmentally perfectly regulated jellybean production line.
 
joG said:
Well, those regulations are part of the reason wages have not increased as much as many would have wanted. You cannot have your cake and eat it, you know.
Click to expand...

Bull**** corporat state mindphuck memes have never explained anything.
 
joG said:
If you have to make three machines to make a product, the costs go up and your jellybean costs more too. Your theory is that this increases GDP and is so positive. Increase the number of machines required to make your jellybean and the economy grows further and further with each piece of ne regulation. The society grows more and more, creates jobs and wages.

You miss that you still only have only one jellybean but are investing in many more machines than the one single one you used originally. The price of you jellybean now has to cover the cost of producing and running all tjos machines you use the make jellybean making environmentally friendly, all those wonderful wages.

You will no longer be in the class of folks that have a bowel of colourful beans on the coffee table, if you a worker in that now environmentally perfectly regulated jellybean production line.
Click to expand...

No, the corporate state never wants to pay anymore than they must, and workers in this society do not matter anymore, at all. First the power structure decided it no longer required the masses for production, then they decided they no longer required the masses for consumption either. Workers do not need real wages to benefit the substantial people any longer. So yeah, let 'em eat jelly beans while we fleece them and feed them lies.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Getting rid of regulations is a lot like getting rid of traffic lights. On the one hand, having too many traffic lights in places that they aren't needed slows traffic and contributes to accidents. On the other hand, not having traffic lights where they are needed also slows traffic and contributes to accidents.

Trying to pare back regulations to what existed years in the past is a lot like taking out all of a town's traffic lights that weren't there thirty or forty years ago without regard for the changing traffic patterns over that time.

Imagine how it would be driving through your town with only the traffic lights that existed back in 1960.
Click to expand...

It is always about balance, but the american corporate state is unbalanced.
 
JasperL said:
Then cite a few so we know how much regulation reduces wages. Is it by cents per hour or dollars per hour? The research I've seen is that, in short, it depends. Just for example, for some reason wages in the highly regulated industrialized countries are higher than in China, Vietnam, etc. Even in this country, the lightly regulated deep south has lower wages than the highly regulated states along the coasts, so if there is a causal relationship, "regulations" are one of many factors affecting wages, and those other factors appear to dominate, with "regulations" playing a minor role.

There is also no doubt 'regulations' increase the costs of dirty industries, but what they really do is appropriately assign costs to being dirty, as opposed to a system where the dirty industries are allowed to offload those costs onto others - negative externalities. But killing off (in the case of environmental regs) dirty industries in favor of more efficient, cleaner industries doesn't necessarily imply a lowering of wages or loss of jobs.



That's true, or it at least is arguably true, but that's not an argument against 'regulation' but the failure of regulations, or in the alternative property rights, in those jurisdictions. China, for example, allows a billion+ people to pay the high costs of filthy air and water for the temporary benefit of manufacturers and coal fired plants producing cheap energy because the government in China has decided it's OK to kill a half million/year as the cost of economic growth and the people have no rights to sue or otherwise defend their rights.

In this country, regulations or not, we're not going back to flaming rivers and cities so polluted you can't see across the street.
Click to expand...

How much does regulation reduce wages? Well, y hat will vrry much depend on the process being regulated, how it impacts costs, required qualifications etc. Some regulation will mean higher wages, if for instance the risk of doing business is reduced by eliminating arbitrariness of government decisions, which is one reason production of certain types are attracted to societies with reliable property rights.

You are right that externalities of production can represent costs to other industries. Regulation can reduce costs of other production ie improve the circumstances of prodution of other products. We have seen this shift in action. Clean industries like banking have grown, while dirty industries like industrials have stagnated in the USA and been outsourced. This has meant wages did not increase in the latter, while the did in the earlier.
 
joG said:
How much does regulation reduce wages? Well, y hat will vrry much depend on the process being regulated, how it impacts costs, required qualifications etc. Some regulation will mean higher wages, if for instance the risk of doing business is reduced by eliminating arbitrariness of government decisions, which is one reason production of certain types are attracted to societies with reliable property rights.

You are right that externalities of production can represent costs to other industries. Regulation can reduce costs of other production ie improve the circumstances of prodution of other products. We have seen this shift in action. Clean industries like banking have grown, while dirty industries like industrials have stagnated in the USA and been outsourced. This has meant wages did not increase in the latter, while the did in the earlier.
Click to expand...

OK, not sure how that comment squares with "Well, those regulations are part of the reason wages have not increased as much as many would have wanted. You cannot have your cake and eat it, you know." but I mostly agree so will leave it there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom