|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
If you read the EO, it's actually far more stupid than just "add one remove two".
For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).
I.e. no agency can introduce regulations which incur a net increase in cost for the government to enforce.
For a lot of agencies this just isn't going to be feasible. The EO is overbroad and doesn't account for agencies that perform almost the entirety of their actual function through regulation like the FDA. "Add one remove two" makes basically no sense in the context of those agencies, and grinding them to a halt isn't doing any good. Like everything else Trump has signed off on since entering office, it's not very well thought out.
|
On January 31 2017 03:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:07 biology]major wrote:On January 31 2017 02:59 Doodsmack wrote:On January 31 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
No, it isn't easy to execute because literally every single rescinded regulation will generate a colorable "arbitrary and capricious" claim under the APA given the proffered executive rationale. Stays in the form of preliminary injunctions are going to issue throughout the country. This executive is on course to be in court more than any in the course of US history. This is what happens when populist simplicity meets reality lol. I'd rather have someone take action and revise and fix EO's as it goes on compared to status quo turtle pace of government. Then again I find all the good in Trump's actions (sometimes I point out things I dislike), and y'all find only the bad. Politics as usual. Isn't that just shutting your ears and only hearing your own message? Again, take something like the TPP that people overall have been pretty fine with being stopped & killed. People overall were happy that Trump followed through on that. It's also a false assumption to assume that Trump has done something that other people should be liking just because he's done 'stuff'.
People gave credit to Trump for that? Oh ok that's good. The 5 year lobby ban, and term limits I imagine are popular in this thread among left leaning posters too.
|
On January 31 2017 03:09 Dan HH wrote:
On the bright side, everyone's paying attention and the more dumb shit like this Trump does, the lower the chances of European populists get in upcoming elections
Thats my one big hope, this presidency gets more embarassing by the minute... But on the other side, populists in switzerland/germany/austria/france feel a bit smarter... like they use "normal" sentences and not first grade speech.
|
5 year lobby ban is popular but derided (at least by me) because he stocked his administration with lobbyists or pseudo-lobbyists who were working within the last 5 years.
|
On January 31 2017 03:09 Dan HH wrote:
On the bright side, everyone's paying attention and the more dumb shit like this Trump does, the lower the chances of European populists get in upcoming elections
Don't be so sure. Trump has always seemed like a bull in a china shop compared to people like Le Pen, Wilders or even Farage. That they share the same underlying ideology doesn't mean they share the same lack of common sense. Both Le Pen and Wilders are extremely experienced politicians (Wilders is one of the most experienced members of parliament in the Netherlands (18 yrs), and Le Pen, of course, grew up with FN).
|
On January 31 2017 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully next time around the non-populists take the concerns of the citizenry more seriously so that they don't win, rather than just put a candidate no one likes and put their agenda ahead of their chances of victory. Or maybe let's simply hope next time people don't vote for a god awful man with bankrupted morals and severe personality disorders because of their resentment of the "establishment".
Maybe the establishment shouldn't make people put in such a shitty spot that that's basically the only two choices they have: populist or hated establishment.
|
On January 31 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 31 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
Hopefully next time around the non-populists take the concerns of the citizenry more seriously so that they don't win, rather than just put a candidate no one likes and put their agenda ahead of their chances of victory. Or maybe let's simply hope next time people don't vote for a god awful man with bankrupted morals and severe personality disorders because of their resentment of the "establishment". Maybe the establishment shouldn't make people put in such a shitty spot that that's basically the only two choices they have: populist or hated establishment.
This is a bit of a fallacy anyways... For all Trump's bluster his policies so far really aren't that different from what the establishment republicans wanted. The only difference is Trump is forward about it and less concerned about blowback from angry constituents.
It was pretty much a vote for an establishment candidate and an establishment candidate that has no shame.
|
On January 31 2017 03:09 Dan HH wrote:
On the bright side, everyone's paying attention and the more dumb shit like this Trump does, the lower the chances of European populists get in upcoming elections
Populism always comes and goes in waves in this cycle. Big wins, big disappointments, then big wins, then big disappointments, and so on. Just hope your country finds itself on a trough of the populist wave rather than a peak is what I can say to European anti-populists.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
fundamentally, the problem with 'anti-establishment' views of the world is the level of irredeemable evil they perceive in the existing order, a view that precludes possible let alone good solutions. some people want to get rid of globalization, some want to get rid of markets, still others immigrants. these are either very bad or not possible.
there's a lot of blame with the false euphoria of the 90's with respect to 'end of history' style celebration of liberal democracy as the perfect system.
however, the way out still lies in reform and institution building efforts. thus, developing trust in institutions and governments is a very important resource at this moment.
|
The way forward does not, however, involve ignoring the inconvenient folk for whom further globalization and immigration is problematic. It's true that it's more likely than not that the populists won't help them - the populist who is skilled enough to create a new government is rare - but it is perhaps a necessity to ensure that their problems are actually considered in the future. The more times "the establishment" tries to force a decision through a "no choice" scenario of "bipartisan" establishment consensus, the more populists will be elected as a fuck-you to the system that treats people with genuine concerns as stupid idiots who just don't get it.
|
|
|
On January 31 2017 03:38 LegalLord wrote:
The way forward does not, however, involve ignoring the inconvenient folk for whom further globalization and immigration is problematic. It's true that it's more likely than not that the populists won't help them - the populist who is skilled enough to create a new government is rare - but it is perhaps a necessity to ensure that their problems are actually considered in the future. The more times "the establishment" tries to force a decision through a "no choice" scenario of "bipartisan" establishment consensus, the more populists will be elected as a fuck-you to the system that treats people with genuine concerns as stupid idiots who just don't get it.
In general, the people and the government need to be better at communication.
People are unaware of what the government is doing to help them.
Government is unable to convince people how the things it has done will help them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 31 2017 03:38 LegalLord wrote:
The way forward does not, however, involve ignoring the inconvenient folk for whom further globalization and immigration is problematic. It's true that it's more likely than not that the populists won't help them - the populist who is skilled enough to create a new government is rare - but it is perhaps a necessity to ensure that their problems are actually considered in the future. The more times "the establishment" tries to force a decision through a "no choice" scenario of "bipartisan" establishment consensus, the more populists will be elected as a fuck-you to the system that treats people with genuine concerns as stupid idiots who just don't get it.
this is true in abstract but does not apply to our current situation, because 'the establishment' as in center-left technocrats involved in dem policy making take very seriously these problems.
you can say the proposed solutions do not go far enough, are constrained by existing ideological blocks such as with respect to role of monetary policy, direct interventions on capital allocation and so on, but i think if the softer solutions do not work for two years or so, real radical changes may be on the table even for a HRC administration.
|
Neoliberalism is now center left?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 31 2017 03:45 Velr wrote:
Neoliberalism is now center left?
uh leftists call center left neoliberal.
this is just the problem, we have large differences in factual beliefs about causes of problems and to some extent the constraints on solutions.
to be more pointed, marxist leftists then categorize people based on their attitude towards markets, regardless of their actual politics. a case of bad worldview leading to bad politics
|
Nah, leftist call the bussiness friendly mid/right neoliberal, in european terms the "pro-business before all else parties".
There is absolutely nothing "left" about this ideology, well, it can be kinda progressive but thats about it.
|
On January 31 2017 03:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 02:59 Doodsmack wrote:On January 31 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
No, it isn't easy to execute because literally every single rescinded regulation will generate a colorable "arbitrary and capricious" claim under the APA given the proffered executive rationale. Stays in the form of preliminary injunctions are going to issue throughout the country. This executive is on course to be in court more than any in the course of US history. This is what happens when populist simplicity meets reality lol. I'd rather have someone take action and revise and fix EO's as it goes on compared to status quo turtle pace of government. Then again I find all the good in Trump's actions (sometimes I point out things I dislike), and y'all find only the bad. Politics as usual.
Trump isn't revising or fixing anything, because that would be admitting that he was wrong, which isn't something he ever does. You are just hoping and imagining Trump to be something he is not, which is a hallmark of his support among people who are actually informed and active.
|
On January 31 2017 03:40 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:38 LegalLord wrote:
The way forward does not, however, involve ignoring the inconvenient folk for whom further globalization and immigration is problematic. It's true that it's more likely than not that the populists won't help them - the populist who is skilled enough to create a new government is rare - but it is perhaps a necessity to ensure that their problems are actually considered in the future. The more times "the establishment" tries to force a decision through a "no choice" scenario of "bipartisan" establishment consensus, the more populists will be elected as a fuck-you to the system that treats people with genuine concerns as stupid idiots who just don't get it. In general, the people and the government need to be better at communication. People are unaware of what the government is doing to help them. Government is unable to convince people how the things it has done will help them.
And sometimes the government doesn't help them and is helping itself instead. Your brief point presumes a goodwill on the government's side that simply isn't justified right now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 31 2017 03:57 Velr wrote:
Nah, leftist call the bussiness friendly mid/right neoliberal, in european terms the "pro-business before all else parties".
There is absolutely nothing "left" about this ideology, well, it can be kinda progressive but thats about it.
because marxists cant tell the difference between pro market and pro business.
as ive said, this ideological predisposition leads you guys to erect illusory enemies and impute bad faith to people you dont understand
basic principle is to make a good faith attempt at understanding those who disagree. left fails this rather badly.
|
Norway28706 Posts
left/right dichotomy is relative to the opposition, they're not absolute values. neoliberalism is much more of an absolute description of favored policies. seeing as how the european and american political climates differ, it makes perfect sense for a neoliberal politician to be center-left in the US and staunchly on the right side of the spectrum in Europe.
In terms of policies favored, democrats are probably the closest to the norwegian conservative party, which in Norway is aptly named 'Right'. In terms of rhetoric employed, they sound more like our Labour party, which is on the left side of the spectrum. This again relates to how rhetoric largely relates to the opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
