[MAGA] President Trump proposes massive tax/regulatory cuts

Deregulation setting us up for another Wall Street scandal where a few lucky ones rob the rest of America's retirement accounts.

 

Wow, obviously these pictures were taken before Trump was in office. Why wasn't Obama able to do anything about this travesty?!?!

 

See, THIS is what we need more of. An attempt to recognize compromise can be reached which can achieve the needed boost in the economy while not overreaching on stripping away some of the more needed regs. Good post.

 

The companies that most benefit from regulation are big multinationals. Regulation is most a burden on smaller companies who don't have entire departments to make sure they're complying to regulation. That's why big multinationals love lobbying because they can dictate the rules to keep competitors out.

 

And compromise and a fair balance between economic growth and regulatory protection are both good things. Curious as to what a reasonable compromise and balance might possibly be, but as with the previous poster, its hard to think eliminating 75% of regulations when so many protect air quality, water quality, fair housing practices, banking and financial practices, health, privacy standards, product and consumer protection, construction standards, etc.

 

Yeah. So?

 

It kills off competition, keeps prices high, and is bad for the consumer. Dude, c'mon.

 

Yea we did all that deregulation/slashing department budgets/lax public oversight under Bush Jr.

 

It will be interesting to see how much debt the GOP controlled Congress allows Trump to add on by cutting taxes.

 

Unregulated chemical dumps are bad for the consumer.

 

It was sufficiently implied I was talking about over-regulation, my daft fellow.

 

Bye bye net neutrality.

The good news is probably D&D will be gone.

We will now all be watching whatever Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T deem fit (and get paid for).

 

I don't think you know what regulation is.

 

Well, you're dead wrong.

 

You probably think any regulation is over-regulation if it doesn't target the blacks.

 

That's a bit too simplistic. The first thing I'd say about regulation is that it protects the public by setting participation rules for industries. You don't get to handle nuclear material, for example, if you don't know what the hell you're doing. Now sure, it also has the effect of raising barriers to entry, which has the effect of protecting margins and making prices higher. That doesn't mean it's bad for the consumer though. That extra money is buying honesty, safety, and professionalism. A multinational and a fly-by-night start-up might be on opposite sides of a regulatory debate, but the start-up's interests aren't necessarily more pure or more consumer-friendly than the multinational's. The start-up can be as willing to put consumers at-risk as the multinational is willing to take undue profits. Sometimes even, regulation is good for competition, because without regulation the public has no faith in the industry -- the crooks spoil it for everyone. So, it's not enough to say "well multinationals are for it so we should be against it" or "less regulation means lower prices" or "lower prices are good for consumers." It's too complex a landscape for that.

 

Like I said to Sweet Lou, I meant over-regulation.

Sure, whatever.

 

I don't know why we, or anyone, would debate the pros and cons of over-regulation. By definition, over-regulation is bad. The problem is ascertaining what regulation is over-regulation and what is prudent, necessary, or beneficial regulation.

 

Tax cuts for the rich are preposterous.

Trickle down is a proven loser of a strategy, it is a failed plan.

DD

 

Double post.

DD