Trump on infrastructure regulation - a game-changer IF he follows through.

Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 5 months ago to Politics
54 comments | Share | Flag

“For too long, America has poured trillions and trillions of dollars into rebuilding foreign countries while allowing our own country -- the country that we love -- and its infrastructure to fall into a state of total disrepair. . . I was not elected to continue a failed system. I was elected to change it. . . No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our prosperity, and sap our great American spirit. That is why we will lift these restrictions and unleash the full potential of the United States of America. . . We will get rid of the redundancy and duplication that wastes your time and your money. Our goal is to give you one point of contact to deliver one decision -- yes or no -- for the entire federal government, and to deliver that decision quickly, whether it's a road, whether it's a highway, a bridge, a dam."
SOURCE URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/09/remarks-president-trump-regulatory-relief


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago
    How about closing the IRS and giving the people back the real economic boom that has been stolen from them for 104 years?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 5 months ago
      Not politically feasible . . . yet. However, tax cuts can ease the IRS burden. That's mostly up to Congress. The President has more discretion in the area of reforming and repealing regulations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago
        Trump can decide to have the IRS stop enforcing the tax laws.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
          The swamp needs the IRS collections to keep alive. It would help much more if people just cut their buying for a couple of months of things that they didnt really need- THAT would send a big message.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago
            Accounting-wise, the majority of collections are automatic, and most of the rest is collected in March-April, so there would be a pause before any additional revenue shortfall occurred. But the govt is in over its head already by a half trillion a year. The real result would be from the example being set by Trump in opposition to the state and the banking cartel. The change in the security for any future loans would be devastating to the banksters and as a result, the USD. Trump's life would be in grave peril, imo.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
              Unfortunately u are right. There really isn't much we can do at this point. We are headed to where Venezuela is at. Ayn Rand predicted this very well
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 5 months ago
    When Obama tried to do infrastructure, and discovered how long it took just to wade through the environmental studies, he just gave up and spent the money elsewhere. I'm glad to see Trump is tackling the issue of excessive regulation head-on, which is more presidential.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
      Shovel ready programs are rare with all the red tape.
      Obama knew of this scarcity and never intended to help the infrastructure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
        The first stimulus bill was sold as spending on “shovel ready” projects to provide the jobs that would put millions of people back to work.

        According to Recovery.gov, the President’s own website which accounts for the stimulus funding (ahem), of the first $787 billion stimulus bill, a full $275 billion has gone un-spent as of August 27, 2010. And of the $512 billion of stimulus already spent, only $18.5 billion (less than seven percent) has been paid out by the Department of Transportation on these “shovel ready” jobs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 years, 5 months ago
    Standing by to be pleasantly surprised by action.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 5 months ago
      I am from Missouri...I'll believe it when I see it..."Show me"...however...if the fed never took the money out of our the states in the first place, each state could do for themselves and I wouldn't have to pay for the infrastructure of others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
      Why? He wants massive government spending in the name of "infrastructure" and is trying to make that easier. He's package dealing that with regulation reform.

      It would be good to make approvals easier when the Federal government is in the way of a legitimate project, but Federal approval of that should not be required at all, nor would he be able to ignore the viro laws mandating it. Declaring a super agency "council" for him to make dictatorial decisions evades the whole problem.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 years, 5 months ago
        "Action" like real regulations getting eliminated, and things of real value getting done. I don't see real elimination of federal government spending or rules feasible, but a decrease in both with more efficiency in application is the right first step. It will demonstrate the value in releasing the floodwaters.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
          A massive increase in government spending in the name of "infrastructure" isn't deregulation. Making that easier with dictatorial control with "one point of contact to deliver one decision" isn't deregulation.

          Of course real deregulation is good. This is a package deal, with the usual Trumpian confusions on behalf of his dictatorial "deals" replacing any rational concept of proper government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 years, 5 months ago
            The dictator has 3 more years to demonstrate benefit. No doubt, the narcissistic POA lacks democratic foundation. However, democratic foundation got us to 8 years of the biggest socialist we've ever had. Right now, all I hope for is an example that works.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
              What we can hope for is anything in this mess that improves anything or doesn't make it as bad as Hillary would be. But that Trump may actually do some of that despite his confusions over 'deals' as the foundation of good government doesn't mean he should be held up as a good example or endorsed in any way as representing a solution to the decline.

              Trump represents more of the same collectivism and statism as the country continues its decline with an occasional zig-zag of protest secondarily superimposed on the general trend on the way down.

              Whatever he may do that may serve as some small example in some particular realm, the collectivists don't learn from example. They know what they want, and it isn't economic success for the individual. The battle is philosophical and over fundamentals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 years, 5 months ago
                Re: "Trump represents more of the same collectivism and statism as the country continues its decline . . . " If that were true the hard lefties would not be fighting him tooth and nail. Trump's agenda is hostile to "globalism", "environmentalism" and "climate change" activism, all pet causes of the contemporary collectivist movement. His rhetoric is free of the typical liberal bromides. Trump is not a consistent advocate of individual liberty, but he is hardly marching in lockstep with his immediate predecessor.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
                  No one said he is marching in lock step with the Democrats. that is a straw man. They are worse, which is obviously why they are fighting him for power. That he is a nationalist who doesn't hate the country like they do doesn't mean he isn't collectivist and statist.

                  He shares the same collectivist statist premises that have been increasingly implemented and adopted with increasing intensity and scope in this country for a century. The left is now far worse over the last few decades, leaving Trump like the Democrats of only a few decades ago.

                  Trump doesn't support the rights of the individual and does not mention them. He doesn't denounced the viros on principle or the climate hysteria ideology. He an anti-philosophical, emotional thinker, a life-long liberal who wants to be more "efficient" with his Pragmatist "deals".

                  Aside from the anti-philosophical Trump idolatry following the man on the white horse, he was widely recognized as an undesirable candidate but the only practical alternative to the more outrageous leftist Clinton and her mafia.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 years, 5 months ago
                    Trump's mixed premises don't make him a collectivist or statist. No serious collectivist would appoint free market advocates to many cabinet posts, or push to massively roll back regulations. Much of the leftist anti-Trump hysteria is due to his dismantling of their collectivist policies and programs.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
                      Trump doesn't have explicit philosophical premises. He is an emotional thinker who takes his collectivism and statism for granted as implicit in his Pragmatism and never speaks of the rights of the individual, far from it. Remember his "eminent domain is wonderful".

                      The same collectivist and statist premises underlie welfare statism as full socialism; it's a matter of degree of implementation. His policies are mixed in how far he will go. You never know what he will do next in the name of dictating a "better deal". It isn't freedom he wants, but to dictate what he thinks is better for the economy. Sometimes it may be better than what we have now in direct effect, but it's still statism.

                      That he wants the economy to be better rather than sacrifice to nature doesn't mean he isn't statist. The same goes for Marx. Remember when socialists used to be for the economy and prosperity? The viros surrendered that to their misanthropic nihilism, taking collectivism to a new depth, but it doesn't make the old-line Marxists and liberals not collectivists or statists. Statist collectivists claiming to be for a collective prosperity instead of nature worship is still statism-collectivism.

                      Trumps appointments are generally better than or not as bad as the Democrats. But calling them "free market" only serves to undermine the battle for freedom as they pursue statist policies in the name of free markets.

                      For example, there is a big battle right now over rescinding Obama's National Monument decrees, which included extending Federal control over private property and industry. But we have a Secretary of the Interior (ZInke) who, like Trump and his family, adore Federal land ownership and accept it as a premise. Clinton would have made it worse; the Trump administration officials are deciding on Obama Monument decrees based on what they deem is better collectively for the economy, with no regard for private property rights and freedom.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 years, 5 months ago
            "One point of contact" is technically not deregulation, but it significantly scales back the red tape that goes along with regulation. And it is part of a wide-ranging "permit reform" that Trump cited in his speech, and which involves outright repeal of numerous regulations.

            As for "infrastructure", until roads, bridges and airports are privatized, our economy requires that they be upgraded to the point where they can operate at a safe and efficient level. At the moment, much of the country's public infrastructure does not meet this standard.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
              Most of it is safe, and maintenance continues almost everywhere you look. There is no excuse for more Federal funding of the state and local functions for any of it. "Crumbling infrastructure" is their battle cry to instill fear and an excuse for more government "solutions" to problems caused by government. Their incompetence always becomes and excuse to pursue more incompetence.

              "One point of contact" is not only not deregulation, he is package dealing more government "infrastructure" projects with the problem of permissions and Federal obstruction for private and local government actions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
    I voted for Trump so as to at least slow down the march to socialism and do a little swamp draining. I am behind him 100% on those goals. The establishment correctly has identified what Trump is up to, and is dead set against him.

    I saw Oliver Stone's Putin interviews, and frankly was impressed by Putin (not so much with Stone, but at least he kept his leftist ideas to himself in this piece). All this anti russian stuff the left is promoting is just keeping Trump and Putin from really starting to cooperate instead of fighting. Trump would be attacked unmercifully for even talking to Putin at this point, which is a REAL SHAME. The Hillary and Bernie supporters are just willing to sacrifice the USA and keep on trying to stop trump. We need to have better foreign relations with Russia and China, and stop useless fighting in the middle east where we gain nothing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jetmec 2 years, 5 months ago
      May be Putin needs to get out of Ukraine first!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
        Putin should stay out of Ukraine and the USA should stay out too. It would appear Crimea wanted to be part of Russia which I think would be their right actually. Stupid decision but they are primarily Russian people
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
          There is a treaty from after the breakup of the USSR guaranteeing that Russia will recognize Ukrainian independence and that the US and others will protect that. It stems from the removal of weapons from Ukraine, leaving it largely defenseless.

          There are a lot of Russians in the Crimea; they have no right to impose Russian control over everyone else -- just as Muslims would have no right to pack some area of this country and demand that it become part of mid-east Sharia.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
            Maybe the democrats could agree they have no right to inflict Hillary and socialism on the rest of us in the USA. I doubt they will agree to that

            Interesting that Texas became part of USA by doing just that. Many non Mexicans simply declared that it's part of USA now

            My point is that national sovereignty is a very muddled thing when a large percentage of the population wants a change. I remember large scale rioting among the Ukrainian population over the issue. In Crimea there was a referendum favoring joining Russia even.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
              The Crimea is part of the nation of Ukraine, which Russia is required to respect by a treaty it signed. It's not muddled. There is a long history of Russia wanting to control Ukraine, which had been part of the Soviet Union. The rioting and "referendum" on the Crimean peninsula were initiated by the Russians.

              Texas was an independent country before it joined the US. As a general principle anyone has the moral right to secede from a nation (like Mexico) in order to become freer. Over 150 years later Mexican racists (La Raza) are moving into the American southwest and California demanding Mexican control.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
                When the south wanted to secede, they were presented with occupation. They should have been allowed to secede, but the north wanted the riches of the south

                As to the Mexicans taking back California, maybe they should just take it in fact. They are already two peas in a pod
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
                  The south wanted to secede over slavery. No one was raiding "riches of the south". No, Mexican racists should not be allowed to take over any part of the US. The California economy is larger than the economies of almost all foreign countries, includes vast amounts of private property, and a lot of people live there who aren't liberal, let alone South American communists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago
                    Read some of DiLorenzo's published research on Lincoln and the reasons the war occurred. It had very little to do with slavery, and it was about statist (Lincoln, GOP, Whig) transfer of wealth from southern agrarian economy to the northern manufacturing mercantilist economy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 2 years, 5 months ago
                    No matter what the reason the south wanted to secede, I think they shouldn't be taken over by the north. The north had slaves too. Even Jefferson had over 200 slaves. Somehow I think the issue was economic more than some lofty argument about slavery.

                    Not that I endorse slavery. My point is that slavery was in fact a part of the entire USA at the time and true equality of blacks took an additional 100 plus years after the civil war

                    As to California , I agree Mexico shouldn't get it for free. But I do think it should be allowed to secede from the USA
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 years, 5 months ago
                      By the time of the Civil War slavery was illegal almost everywhere but the south. There was very little of it outside the feudalist plantations. The major battles over allowing new states were over whether or not they would allow slaves. The attempts by leftist revisionism to evade that in their denunciations of this country are preposterous.

                      California is not an "it". We are talking about people. No group of people has a "right" to form an even more statist-collectivist society and oppress a minority with it. There are no collective rights to mob action.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 years, 5 months ago
    The promise of making the government more efficient usually results in it being more destructive efficiently. I don't trust Trump any more than any other politician that might be enlisted. Their motive is not to 'help' the people. It is to enrich themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 years, 5 months ago
    In the old days there was a medical procedure known as a "Tobacco Enema". Basically the doctor just blew smoke up your ass. Fast forward and our politicians are still using this same failed procedure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo