Vid : Trump demands 5% budget cut from each Dept. head at White House Mtg.

[eleganz]

He's calling it the "Nickel plan". I figured this was coming sometime next year so color me pleasantly surprised.

I guess some here will (stupidly) say its all part of the Swamp plan to cut 5% in government to appease and control the conservative base?? Anybody? Bueller?

I know he gets a lot of crap around here for not being a libertarian (excuse me while I laugh at anybody who expects it) but I also know Trump has the ego bigger than any past president. He doesn't want to be compared to Obama in anyway when he's done. It's not unreasonable to assume he would tackle spending and leave office with less debt than what Obama accrued.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNfVQjZOHQ

[shakey1]

You would think that's not too much to ask.:money:

[dannno]

Hold on, let me go get some straws for the anti-Trumpers to grasp at..

[AuH20]

They will kick and scream.

[Brian4Liberty]

They will kick and scream.

The left will take it to every leftist court in the nation and every one of them will block it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hold on, let me go get some straws for the anti-Trumpers to grasp at..

Zippy is busy, let me take a guess...

It doesn’t cover military/defense spending, and it can’t touch entitlement, interest and welfare spending, so it’s only a tiny portion of the the budget. It’s really no cut at all, just a slight decrease in the automatic year over year increases, so the spending will actually increase.

(Insert pie chart here).

[Swordsmyth]

:up:

[Swordsmyth]

:star::star::star::star::star:

[nobody's_hero]

The left will take it to every leftist court in the nation and every one of them will block it.

That's why we should follow the commonly proposed strategy of sitting on our asses and groaning while dems retake a majori—oh wait.

[phill4paul]

Zippy is busy, let me take a guess...

It doesn’t cover military/defense spending, and it can’t touch entitlement, interest and welfare spending, so it’s only a tiny portion of the the budget. It’s really no cut at all, just a slight decrease in the automatic year over year increases, so the spending will actually increase.

(Insert pie chart here).

Dayum. That was goooo-ood. +rep.

[r3volution 3.0]

Zippy is busy, let me take a guess...

It doesn’t cover military/defense spending, and it can’t touch entitlement, interest and welfare spending, so it’s only a tiny portion of the the budget. It’s really no cut at all, just a slight decrease in the automatic year over year increases, so the spending will actually increase.

(Insert pie chart here).

Is any of that untrue?

[phill4paul]

Is any of that untrue?

You don't like the idea of a 5 Penny Plan why?

Five Penny Plan
:star::star::star::star::star:

[r3volution 3.0]

You don't like the idea of a 5 Penny Plan why?

Five Penny Plan
:star::star::star::star::star:

If it's intended to apply only to non-defense discretionary spending (which I would assume is the case), it's peanuts.

...not only in terms of the budget as a whole, but in terms of the spending increases which Trump has already signed into law.

So, no, I'm not going to wet myself in excitement.

[phill4paul]

If it's intended to apply only to non-defense discretionary spending (which I would assume is the case), it's peanuts.

...not only in terms of the budget as a whole, but in terms of the spending increases which Trump has already signed into law.

So, no, I'm not going to wet myself in excitement.

You you did like Rand's penny plan though. Right?

[specsaregood]

If it's intended to apply only to non-defense discretionary spending (which I would assume is the case), it's peanuts.

...not only in terms of the budget as a whole, but in terms of the spending increases which Trump has already signed into law.

So, no, I'm not going to wet myself in excitement.

yes, if we cant cut it all now, we should not bother cutting anything at all.

[phill4paul]

yes, if we cant cut it all now, we should not bother cutting anything at all.

Absolutely, it'd suck if Trump only cut 5% spending to 60% of all agencies. Ron Paul would have shut down ALL agencies on day one.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is any of that untrue?

The glass is half empty perspective.

They said on one media report that the military spending is excluded, and we can probably assume that the mandatory and debt maintenance spending can’t be touched. As for the rest, it was pure speculation, so who knows?

A 5% across the board headcount reduction would help even more. Someone tell Trump.

[r3volution 3.0]

yes, if we cant cut it all now, we should not bother cutting anything at all.

We might first bother not increasing it.


You you did like Rand's penny plan though. Right?

I'm always for spending cuts.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy/delusion inherent in praising this little cut, after Trump just signed a much bigger increase.

Altogether, he's is not cutting spending; he's increasing it while redirecting it from one agency to another.

Rand, on the other hand, has always proposed cuts plain and simple: not coupled with more than offsetting increases.

*this all assumes that these cuts will even happen (I expect it's a ruse - Congress objects, Trump doesn't veto, can say he tried)

[juleswin]

Wow, I would have been just fine with a freeze in spending increases but a 5% plan would blow Rand and definitely Ron Paul's plan out of the water. I guess this is the Ron Paul on steroids people were talking about. I support a cut in spending but I will advice him to start slow and as the people and dept adjust, increase the cuts up to 5% a year.

I just hope to be still alive when this plan comes to fruition.

Godspeed Trump

[Madison320]

Hold on, let me go get some straws for the anti-Trumpers to grasp at..

That's like praising the fat guy for ordering the diet coke, after he just scarfed up a triple cheeseburger and 3 orders of large fries.

Or like Elizabeth Warren bragging about being native American.

And don't give me that crap about moving in the right direction. Moving in the right direction would be spending less each year. Or even cutting the rate of increase. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we've been increasing the rate of increase. Wipe that kool aid off your chin.

[Swordsmyth]

That's like praising the fat guy for ordering the diet coke, after he just scarfed up a triple cheeseburger and 3 orders of large fries.

Or like Elizabeth Warren bragging about being native American.

And don't give me that crap about moving in the right direction. Moving in the right direction would be spending less each year. Or even cutting the rate of increase. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we've been increasing the rate of increase. Wipe that kool aid off your chin.
It is definitely not enough yet, lets hope it is the beginning of something that will grow bigger.

[kona]

Here is the beauty of Trump cutting spending. He called for 5% but implied he would like to see more from some agencies. Underpromising, overdelivering. A successful cut this year (which will be a record) will have Trump wanting to beat that record next year. And for five successive years after that.

If Trump couples this with bringing a significant part of the military home and more tax cuts, it will be very significant.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's like praising the fat guy for ordering the diet coke, after he just scarfed up a triple cheeseburger and 3 orders of large fries.

Well put

[oyarde]

I think 5 , more like 10 percent is a good start . Then do it every year .

[phill4paul]

We might first bother not increasing it.



I'm always for spending cuts.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy/delusion inherent in praising this little cut, after Trump just signed a much bigger increase.

Altogether, he's is not cutting spending; he's increasing it while redirecting it from one agency to another.

Rand, on the other hand, has always proposed cuts plain and simple: not coupled with more than offsetting increases.

*this all assumes that these cuts will even happen (I expect it's a ruse - Congress objects, Trump doesn't veto, can say he tried)

Did you watch the video? Trump said that he increased the defense budget because he said they needed it. They don't. You and I both know that. He said now that that has been accomplished it is time to move toward reducing government. Through the defense spending he solidified his base. That means his party wins in the mid-term and he wins in 2020.
Please don't tell me that you believed that Ron Paul, on day one, could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS without being impeached. That he could have taken all the troops and "marched them home like we marched them out."
It was great rhetoric. It spoke to me. But, for even an instant, did you actually believe it was that easy?
Believe what you want. I personally believe that Trump, with his ego, wants to leave a legacy unlike other presidents. We've seen the legacy of former presidents. He wants to leave his unlike others. The hate against him just emboldens him.
He can do spectacularly well, or spectacularly fail. It's all left to be seen. But, hearing you and others bitching about every little thing is getting old.
But, I've yet to see a single president in my lifetime call for budget cuts, from any agency, at a 5% rate.
So, I guess time will tell.

[phill4paul]

That's like praising the fat guy for ordering the diet coke, after he just scarfed up a triple cheeseburger and 3 orders of large fries.

Or like Elizabeth Warren bragging about being native American.

And don't give me that crap about moving in the right direction. Moving in the right direction would be spending less each year. Or even cutting the rate of increase. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we've been increasing the rate of increase. Wipe that kool aid off your chin.

You just don't understand how populism works, do you? How it is absolutely needed to accomplish goals.

Did you really believe on day one of a Ron Paul presidency that he could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS all while ordering every troop home without being impeached?

[phill4paul]

Wow, I would have been just fine with a freeze in spending increases but a 5% plan would blow Rand and definitely Ron Paul's plan out of the water. I guess this is the Ron Paul on steroids people were talking about. I support a cut in spending but I will advice him to start slow and as the people and dept adjust, increase the cuts up to 5% a year.

I just hope to be still alive when this plan comes to fruition.

Godspeed Trump

It's a negotiation. Start bigly. Settle lower. If it even amounts to 1% it is a win. Unless of course you hate Trump and nothing is ever good enough.

[r3volution 3.0]

Did you watch the video? Trump said that he increased the defense budget because he said they needed it. They don't. You and I both know that. He said now that that has been accomplished it is time to move toward reducing government. Through the defense spending he solidified his base. That means his party wins in the mid-term and he wins in 2020.
Please don't tell me that you believed that Ron Paul, on day one, could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS without being impeached. That he could have taken all the troops and "marched them home like we marched them out."
It was great rhetoric. It spoke to me. But, for even an instant, did you actually believe it was that easy?
Believe what you want. I personally believe that Trump, with his ego, wants to leave a legacy unlike other presidents. We've seen the legacy of former presidents. He wants to leave his unlike others. The hate against him just emboldens him.
He can do spectacularly well, or spectacularly fail. It's all left to be seen. But, hearing you and others bitching about every little thing is getting old.
But, I've yet to see a single president in my lifetime call for budget cuts, from any agency, at a 5% rate.
So, I guess time will tell.

Yea, you lost me when you started comparing him to Ron..

The guy currently growing government, who's always advocated big government, isn't on a secret mission to shrink government.


If it even amounts to 1% it is a win.

My math isn't great. Maybe you can help me out.

$150 billion spending increase (done)
- $50 billion spending decrease (proposed)
---------
= winning?


You just don't understand how populism works, do you? How it is absolutely needed to accomplish goals.

Did you really believe on day one of a Ron Paul presidency that he could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS all while ordering every troop home without being impeached?

Here's how populism work (at least in the fiscal arena):

1. Keep the gravy train rolling

2. Cut taxes anyway

3. Print money to cover the difference

[juleswin]

It's a negotiation. Start bigly. Settle lower. If it even amounts to 1% it is a win. Unless of course you hate Trump and nothing is ever good enough.

That would be amazing if he can get only a freeze in spending, a real spending cut on the other hand would make him a legend. I will go a little bit further and say that if the next year's budget only increases by the rate of inflation which is 2-3%, I will be among the people singing his praise on this site. I don't like Trump but that kind of achievement would be impossible for any fiscal conservative on this site to ignore.

I wish him the best cos I have a strong feeling that many people aren't going to like it.

[TheCount]

Is this going to be the kind of cut where the new numbers are smaller than the old numbers, or the kind where the new numbers are bigger than the old numbers?

[phill4paul]

Yea, you lost me when you started comparing him to Ron..

The guy currently growing government, who's always advocated big government, isn't on a secret mission to shrink government.



My math isn't great. Maybe you can help me out.

$150 billion spending increase (done)
- $50 billion spending decrease (proposed)
---------
= winning?



Here's how populism work (at least in the fiscal arena):

1. Keep the gravy train rolling

2. Cut taxes anyway

3. Print money to cover the difference

Cutting taxes is not populism. Maybe you didn't get the memo. I'm absolutely assured that the Democrat base wants taxes raised to the point that corporations and their CEO's don't make more than the average worker.
Hate all you want. I don't care. At least Trump shakes the tree constantly. Job growth is back. At least in my area and that is enough for me. Wages are rising. Less illegal workers equals higher wages in a tight hiring market.
So, go on with your bad self and the belief that someday all the Americans on welfare are gonna vote for a 1789 reset. Or whatever utopia you think you are going to achieve.
I'll take small victories when I can get them. Federal deregulation against corporations on a scale unseen in my lifetime. The bolstering of the labor market and higher wages through that. And now a call out for 5% slashes on the Federal agencies.
Keep doing what you do best. Bitching and accomplishing nothing.

[Zippyjuan]

Election promises in the wake of soaring deficits being announced this week. Won't come to anything. Congress will determine actual spending- not Trump.


On the heels of a new Treasury Department report showing a 17 percent rise in the annual federal budget deficit, President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he was asking his Cabinet to propose major belt-tightening.


The yawning deficit has become an increasingly hot political issue in the midterms, with Democrats hammering Republicans for talking tough about fiscal responsibility while expanding the deficit in the nearly two years Trump has been in office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-proposes-5-percent-budget-cut-each-cabinet-agency-n921231

[r3volution 3.0]

Cutting taxes is not populism.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is populism par excellence.

Free stuff is popular; tax bills aren't.

...neither are higher interest rates/inflation, of course, but politicians can deflect the blame for those, since Boobus doesn't understand economics


Job growth is back. At least in my area and that is enough for me. Wages are rising.

The economy has been recovering for a decade in spite of Obama-Trump's policies, not because of them.


Federal deregulation against corporations on a scale unseen in my lifetime.

The deregulation is a rounding error relative the total cost of regulation, $600 million/year out of well over $2 trillion/year.

[CaptUSA]

Seriously, if Trump can bring this to fruition, not only will I vote for him, I might campaign for him!

Sounds like a stunt to fire up team red, but I’m crossing my fingers.

[phill4paul]

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is populism par excellence.

Free stuff is popular; tax bills aren't.

...neither are higher interest rates/inflation, of course, but politicians can deflect the blame for those, since Boobus doesn't understand economics



The economy has been recovering for a decade in spite of Obama-Trump's policies, not because of them.



The deregulation is a rounding error relative the total cost of regulation, $600 million/year out of well over $2 trillion/year.

You have it all figured out. Bigly. Good luck with it. The rest of us idiots will make do with what we can get. For myself it is a Red Wave. Through and through. Go vote for whoever you want. Or best don't vote at all. That only encourages the cycle. Right?
I'm tired of your bullshit. Do what you will, I'm done explaining myself. Trump 2020!

[Grandmastersexsay]

Election promises in the wake of soaring deficits being announced this week. Won't come to anything. Congress will determine actual spending- not Trump.





https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-proposes-5-percent-budget-cut-each-cabinet-agency-n921231

That might be true if the president couldn't veto appropriations bills, but he can.

[Zippyjuan]

That might be true if the president couldn't veto appropriations bills, but he can.

He can veto them but he can't write them. If we use 2018 budget numbers and leave off Defense spending (Trump says he wants to keep that above $700 billion) we are looking at $480 billion in spending. A five percent cut would be $24 billion with the deficit for next year expected to top $1 trillion. The additional money he wants for his wall would wipe that out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget

[phill4paul]

Seriously, if Trump can bring this to fruition, not only will I vote for him, I might campaign for him!

Sounds like a stunt to fire up team red, but I’m crossing my fingers.

Good God damn, THANK YOU Cap. I ain't saying it will come to pass. Or that he is even serious about it. But, the fact that he has at least brought it up? WTF?
How could any Trump hater not at least give credit to a POTUS that has at least mentioned it in public?

As an aside, how many MSM sNews Organs covered this tonight? I don't watch TV much.

[r3volution 3.0]

You have it all figured out. Bigly. Good luck with it. The rest of us idiots will make do with what we can get. For myself it is a Red Wave. Through and through. Go vote for whoever you want. Or best don't vote at all. That only encourages the cycle. Right?
I'm tired of your bullshit. Do what you will, I'm done explaining myself. Trump 2020!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/963a8adac6b47cb1bf3cd8bae32c189c/tenor.gif?itemid=6158777

[phill4paul]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/963a8adac6b47cb1bf3cd8bae32c189c/tenor.gif?itemid=6158777

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AbleIllustriousFrog-small.gif

[CaptUSA]

Good God damn, THANK YOU Cap. I ain't saying it will come to pass. Or that he is even serious about it. But, the fact that he has at least brought it up? WTF?
How could any Trump hater not at least give credit to a POTUS that has at least mentioned it in public?

As an aside, how many MSM sNews Organs covered this tonight? I don't watch TV much.

Well let’s not get carried away, yet. Trump says all sorts of shit. But if this really happens.... it’s almosy impossible to conceive!

[phill4paul]

Well let’s not get carried away, yet. Trump says all sorts of shit. But if this really happens.... it’s almosy impossible to conceive!

Not getting carried away at all. Just an kudos to you for keeping an open mind and acknowledging that this would be good. Nothing more. Some can't seem to do that.

[eleganz]

We might first bother not increasing it.



I'm always for spending cuts.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy/delusion inherent in praising this little cut, after Trump just signed a much bigger increase.

Altogether, he's is not cutting spending; he's increasing it while redirecting it from one agency to another.

Rand, on the other hand, has always proposed cuts plain and simple: not coupled with more than offsetting increases.

*this all assumes that these cuts will even happen (I expect it's a ruse - Congress objects, Trump doesn't veto, can say he tried)

Bro sorry to cut it to you like this but seems like you have early onset TDS. Basically nothing is good enough, everything sucks or you just can't admit he is doing something decent that we have all been wanting and essentially never thought was ever going to happen.


These cuts are a step in the right direction. Imagine the MSM doomsday headlines if Trump actually did a deep cut that RPF would be extremely proud of. I believe that just like they want Tax Cuts 2.0, they'll also want budget cuts 2.0 and 3.0.

You call these budget cuts, peanuts. Democrats also called the Tax cuts, crumbs.



Did you watch the video? Trump said that he increased the defense budget because he said they needed it. They don't. You and I both know that. He said now that that has been accomplished it is time to move toward reducing government. Through the defense spending he solidified his base. That means his party wins in the mid-term and he wins in 2020.
Please don't tell me that you believed that Ron Paul, on day one, could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS without being impeached. That he could have taken all the troops and "marched them home like we marched them out."
It was great rhetoric. It spoke to me. But, for even an instant, did you actually believe it was that easy?
Believe what you want. I personally believe that Trump, with his ego, wants to leave a legacy unlike other presidents. We've seen the legacy of former presidents. He wants to leave his unlike others. The hate against him just emboldens him.
He can do spectacularly well, or spectacularly fail. It's all left to be seen. But, hearing you and others bitching about every little thing is getting old.
But, I've yet to see a single president in my lifetime call for budget cuts, from any agency, at a 5% rate.
So, I guess time will tell.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

Abolishing all of those departments that we called for in the past were always a pipe dream and a slogan we all loved. Even I knew it was not realistic. I guess some took it very seriously and are applying those expectations to a president who doesn't give two shts about the libertarian vote.

[Danke]

Bro sorry to cut it to you like this but seems like you have early onset TDS. Basically nothing is good enough, everything sucks or you just can't admit he is doing something decent that we have all been wanting and essentially never thought was ever going to happen.


These cuts are a step in the right direction. Imagine the MSM doomsday headlines if Trump actually did a deep cut that RPF would be extremely proud of. I believe that just like they want Tax Cuts 2.0, they'll also want budget cuts 2.0 and 3.0.

You call these budget cuts, peanuts. Democrats also called the Tax cuts, crumbs.




You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.


I'm not sure "early" is correct here.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bro sorry to cut it to you like this but seems like you have early onset TDS. Basically nothing is good enough, everything sucks or you just can't admit he is doing something decent that we have all been wanting and essentially never thought was ever going to happen.

You realize that, even with a 5% cut in non-defense discretionary spending, total spending will increase?

[Swordsmyth]

You realize that, even with a 5% cut in non-defense discretionary spending, total spending will increase?

Would you rather not have the 5% cut?

Why can't this just be the thin end of the wedge?

[nbhadja]

You just don't understand how populism works, do you? How it is absolutely needed to accomplish goals.

Did you really believe on day one of a Ron Paul presidency that he could have shuttered the FBI, CIA and IRS all while ordering every troop home without being impeached?

Purists do not understand it and never will. It is why they will never accomplish anything until Trump tears down the walls for them (which he is doing now). They just can't think long term. They can't even get elected because their strategy is to magically win everything instantly. It has never worked in the modern era.

Thankfully many Americans understand how the game is played including Trump. The GOP and its supporters are mostly brainwashed to support a huge expensive military. Just look at the backlash Ron received about his foreign policy when he ran for president. Trump had to play the game to win (he even pretends to be very religious to appease his base even though he isn't that religious in real life), but as he finishes taking over the GOP you will start to see things change rapidly soon. Over the next few years you will us leave the global police role and you will see massive budget cuts. The purists cannot understand this because Trump grew the deficit in his first few years as president, so therefore he will continue to do that. The art of war is lost on them. An unwavering purist was never going to get elected.

[Swordsmyth]

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is populism par excellence.

Free stuff is popular; tax bills aren't.

...neither are higher interest rates/inflation, of course, but politicians can deflect the blame for those, since Boobus doesn't understand economics



The economy has been recovering for a decade in spite of Obama-Trump's policies, not because of them.



The deregulation is a rounding error relative the total cost of regulation, $600 million/year out of well over $2 trillion/year.
The $600 M was just what it cost the government to enforce the regulations.



U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday praised White House efforts to remove regulations that he sees as an impediment to economic growth, saying the administration had reduced regulatory costs by $23 billion in the year ending Sept. 30.

The White House said it had eliminated regulatory costs totaling $23 billion in the most recent budget year but did not specify how much in societal benefits resulted from those eliminated rules. Regulatory costs are estimates by the administration of the costs for businesses and individuals to comply with mandated rules.
The administration said it had approved 14 new significant regulations and eliminated 57 major regulations in the 2017-2018 budget year.

The biggest regulation under review in dollar terms is a proposal to freeze vehicle fuel-efficiency standards at 2020 levels through 2026, one that would save $340 billion in regulatory costs, but add at least $150 billion in higher fuel costs.

More at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulation/trump-touts-push-to-rescind-government-regulations-idUSKCN1MR379

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you rather not have the 5% cut?

Why can't this just be the thin end of the wedge?

Trump doesn't get credit for cutting into a spending increase for which he himself is responsible.

"Hey guys, I'm going to increase spending by $150 billion, but I'm also going to cut it by $50 billion; I'm a fiscal conservative!"

Suppose Obama, instead of doing an $800 billion "stimulus" had done $1.6 trillion: coupled with an $800 billion cut elsewhere.

Would you have cheered it as a step in the right direction?

[phill4paul]

Purists do not understand it and never will. It is why they will never accomplish anything until Trump tears down the walls for them (which he is doing now). They just can't think long term. They can't even get elected because their strategy is to magically win everything instantly. It has never worked in the modern era.

Thankfully many Americans understand how the game is played including Trump. The GOP and its supporters are mostly brainwashed to support a huge expensive military. Just look at the backlash Ron received about his foreign policy when he ran for president. Trump had to play the game to win (he even pretends to be very religious to appease his base even though he isn't that religious in real life), but as he finishes taking over the GOP you will start to see things change rapidly soon. Over the next few years you will us leave the global police role and you will see massive budget cuts. The purists cannot understand this because Trump grew the deficit in his first few years as president, so therefore he will continue to do that. The art of war is lost on them. An unwavering purist was never going to get elected.

I'm not buying into Trump full tilt. I was the most vociferous anti-Trumper on these forums leading up to the election. Didn't vote for him. But, I'm open to seeing what plays out. Right now it means voting Red Wave to see what the sequel brings.

[Cleaner44]

Reason #90 that I am glad that Donald Trump is our president.

I hope this turns into reality.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump doesn't get credit for cutting into a spending increase for which he himself is responsible.

"Hey guys, I'm going to increase spending by $150 billion, but I'm also going to cut it by $50 billion; I'm a fiscal conservative!"

Suppose Obama, instead of doing an $800 billion "stimulus" had done $1.6 trillion: coupled with an $800 billion cut elsewhere.

Would you have cheered it as a step in the right direction?
Would you rather not have the 5%?
Why can't this be the first step on a long journey?

[TheCount]

Would you rather not have the 5%?
Why can't this be the first step on a long journey?

When each "cut" increases the budget, the journey will be infinitely long.


Show me the budget cuts.

https://i.imgur.com/oPNlBg7.png

[Aratus]

If he truly has br@$$baLLz he'd intelligently clip 50% of the Pentagon budget
as he keeps military efficacy above a 95% percentile. Next he'd need to fire all
his top level political hacks he inflicted on each Gov't Department before a 3%
trim to the somewhat redundant upper levels. He won't do this. It's all blather.

[r3volution 3.0]

The $600 M was just what it cost the government to enforce the regulations.

No, it's the estimate of the annual economic impact.

From the guidance published by the Trump administration about how to apply the EO:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf


V. Accounting Questions

Q21. How should costs and cost savings be measured?

A: Except where noted in other portions of this guidance, costs should be estimated using the methods and concepts appearing in OMB Circular A-4. There are several types of impacts that, under O MB Circular A-4, could be reasonably categorized as either benefits or costs, with the only difference being the sign (positive or negative) on the estimates. In most cases where there is ambiguity in the categorization of impacts, agencies should conform to the accounting conventions they have followed in past analyses. For example, if medical cost savings due to safety regulations have historically been categorized as benefits rather than reduced costs, they should continue to be categorized as benefits for EO 13771 regulatory actions. Identifying cost savings, such as fuel savings associated with energy efficiency investments, as benefits is a common accounting convention followed in O IRA’s reports to Congress on the benefits and costs of Federal regulations.

...


The White House said it had eliminated regulatory costs totaling $23 billion in the most recent budget

That figure isn't the annual savings; it's the present value of the annual savings out to infinity, discounted at 7%.

https://reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_AM_12072017.pdf


Annualized Value v. Present Value.

The above chart uses the present value of regulatory and deregulatory actions. Annualized value and present value are different forms of the same summary numbers. With a perpetual time horizon and a 7 percent discount rate, a present value can be transformed into its contemporaneous annualized value by multiplying by 0.07.



Incidentally, the final report for FY 2018 (link above) gives an annual savings of 1.64 billion, or well under 0.1% of the total regulatory burden.

P.S. As to that percentage, here (http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf) is a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, which put the total cost of federal regulation at $2.028 trillion annually in 2012. Even if we use that figure, i.e. ignoring both inflation and the growth of the regulatory state, Trump's $1.64 billion in annual savings equals 0.08% of the total. If Trump were to continue his yuge deregulation at this rate, we'd halve the burden in about 600 years.

[jmdrake]

Did you watch the video? Trump said that he increased the defense budget because he said they needed it.

And why exactly does the military need more money? So they can buy more planes that can't actually fulfill their mission like the F35 just suck fighter?

[Aratus]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[euphemia]

Absolutely, it'd suck if Trump only cut 5% spending to 60% of all agencies. Ron Paul would have shut down ALL agencies on day one.

That sounds nice, but I seriously doubt it would have happened.

[TheCount]

And why exactly does the military need more money? So they can buy more planes that can't actually fulfill their mission like the F35 just suck fighter?

Have a laugh:

http://thf-graphics.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/2019%20Index%20of%20Military%20Strength/score%20tables/Power/2019_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength_ASSESSMENTS_Power_S UMMARY.png

https://www.heritage.org/military-strength

[jmdrake]

Have a laugh:

http://thf-graphics.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/2019%20Index%20of%20Military%20Strength/score%20tables/Power/2019_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength_ASSESSMENTS_Power_S UMMARY.png

https://www.heritage.org/military-strength

Yeah. That is pretty laughable. Then again Heritage were the folks that were for an individual mandate before they were against one.

[kona]

This got zero coverage outside of the fox broadcast...

[r3volution 3.0]

This got zero coverage outside of the fox broadcast...

Googling "Trump 5%" brings up articles from:

-CNBC
-USA Today
-WSJ
-CNN
-Bloomberg
-Marketwatch

That's on the first page.

[nikcers]

A 5% cut in spending isn't going to correct everything but if our economy improves it would help sell the ideas that cutting spending can improve the economy to the most amount of people possible. Plus when the dollar is spent more wisely there is less inflated mess so your good investments buy more which will make the government run leaner and cleaner..

[Champ]

This is the type of stuff we have been working towards since the liberty movement began in earnest. The goal is to start cutting these things down until they are erased from existence.

I understand the apprehension since government and politicians love to lie and dangle the carrot on the stick just enough to bring in the skeptics and the fence sitters.

But with that said, how is something like this, something Ron Paul has been yelling from the mountain tops like crazy for decades, being rejected on these boards? We would have been singing hallelujah in 2007 if this had happened then. We couldn't have imagined 11 years ago we would have a president that would propose such a thing, unless we got our guy, Dr. Paul, in there. Not to mention cutting foreign aid from countries, another thing Ron Paul desperately tried to convey in the debates to the tune of wild laughter from the audience and the msm.

Now it's happening, a sitting president is actually considering these issues, and we still have people whining? I love you guys.

[eleganz]

You realize that, even with a 5% cut in non-defense discretionary spending, total spending will increase?


At this point Trump is actively making good on his campaign promises and appears like he is trying to do more. At this point I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt and its worth waiting to see what happens.

[devil21]

He's calling it the "Nickel plan". I figured this was coming sometime next year so color me pleasantly surprised.

I guess some here will (stupidly) say its all part of the Swamp plan to cut 5% in government to appease and control the conservative base?? Anybody? Bueller?

I know he gets a lot of crap around here for not being a libertarian (excuse me while I laugh at anybody who expects it) but I also know Trump has the ego bigger than any past president. He doesn't want to be compared to Obama in anyway when he's done. It's not unreasonable to assume he would tackle spending and leave office with less debt than what Obama accrued.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNfVQjZOHQ

Appease and control? Naaa....just a requirement as the Fed money printer slows down due to ongoing loss of global dollar reserve currency status. That is also assuming any such cuts aren't directed to the MIC instead...

It's really rich when people troll and imply others are 'stupid', yet troller clearly knows nothing about economic current events that aren't mentioned in the Fox News bubble.

[CaptUSA]

I'm not buying into Trump full tilt. I was the most vociferous anti-Trumper on these forums leading up to the election. Didn't vote for him. But, I'm open to seeing what plays out. Right now it means voting Red Wave to see what the sequel brings.

I'm still an "anti-Trumper" until he actually does something on this front. But like you, I'm open to the possibility.

Here's the thing... Trump wrote a book about playing to people's fantasies. It's part of his con. In this case, he's playing to my fantasies about cutting government spending. I can see how easy it is to get caught up in it. I want to believe it. It's my hope speaking. Trump, like Obama, is incredibly adept at manipulating people's hopes. So I'm very cautiously optimistic.

I also recognize that he may be using this stunt as a way to rev up the base for the red wave. Since I've never voted party, I'll continue trying to vote out incumbents unless there's a true liberty candidate on the ballot.

As far as keeping an open mind, I just hope those true Trump believers will do so if this turns out to be a 5% cut in the rate of growth. (If the plan was to grow spending at 7%, but the cuts amount to a growth of 6.65% then this whole exercise is useless.) Also, keep an open mind if these cuts never come to fruition - that should indicate this is an election year ploy. Also, keep an open mind if there are cuts in some areas, but bigger growths in other areas. His comments about the military suggests he still isn't serious, but we'll see.

In short, Trump has a big opportunity here to win me over. I really, really hope he does it! If the GOP wins next month, they should have no reason not to do it. He'll turn me into a Trump-thumper and I'll be on the front lines pushing for his re-election!

But if this doesn't pan out - NO MORE EXCUSES! Sound fair?? You can tag this post.

[PAF]

Appease and control? Naaa....just a requirement as the Fed money printer slows down due to ongoing loss of global dollar reserve currency status. That is also assuming any such cuts aren't directed to the MIC instead...

It's really rich when people troll and imply others are 'stupid', yet troller clearly knows nothing about economic current events that aren't mentioned in the Fox News bubble.

^^^^^^^^

[juleswin]

I'm still an "anti-Trumper" until he actually does something on this front. But like you, I'm open to the possibility.

Here's the thing... Trump wrote a book about playing to people's fantasies. It's part of his con. In this case, he's playing to my fantasies about cutting government spending. I can see how easy it is to get caught up in it. I want to believe it. It's my hope speaking. Trump, like Obama, is incredibly adept at manipulating people's hopes. So I'm very cautiously optimistic.

I also recognize that he may be using this stunt as a way to rev up the base for the red wave. Since I've never voted party, I'll continue trying to vote out incumbents unless there's a true liberty candidate on the ballot.

As far as keeping an open mind, I just hope those true Trump believers will do so if this turns out to be a 5% cut in the rate of growth. (If the plan was to grow spending at 7%, but the cuts amount to a growth of 6.65% then this whole exercise is useless.) Also, keep an open mind if these cuts never come to fruition - that should indicate this is an election year ploy. Also, keep an open mind if there are cuts in some areas, but bigger growths in other areas. His comments about the military suggests he still isn't serious, but we'll see.

In short, Trump has a big opportunity here to win me over. I really, really hope he does it! If the GOP wins next month, they should have no reason not to do it. He'll turn me into a Trump-thumper and I'll be on the front lines pushing for his re-election!

But if this doesn't pan out - NO MORE EXCUSES! Sound fair?? You can tag this post.

This is also my take on the issue. Anyone else remember Trump talking about auditing the fed, bringing troops home, building a wall, prosecuting Hillary Clinton etc etc? the man is a sweet talker. Many of the newbies are still new to the game and will start waving the victory flag just from the proclamations of a politician.

I hope this time he is serious this time

[Madison320]

Cutting taxes is not populism. Maybe you didn't get the memo. I'm absolutely assured that the Democrat base wants taxes raised to the point that corporations and their CEO's don't make more than the average worker.
Hate all you want. I don't care. At least Trump shakes the tree constantly. Job growth is back. At least in my area and that is enough for me. Wages are rising. Less illegal workers equals higher wages in a tight hiring market.
So, go on with your bad self and the belief that someday all the Americans on welfare are gonna vote for a 1789 reset. Or whatever utopia you think you are going to achieve.
I'll take small victories when I can get them. Federal deregulation against corporations on a scale unseen in my lifetime. The bolstering of the labor market and higher wages through that. And now a call out for 5% slashes on the Federal agencies.
Keep doing what you do best. Bitching and accomplishing nothing.

Reading thru the responses it's obvious that most of you guys have no clue as to the state of the economy. It's a massive bubble that could pop at any moment. We have almost 22 trillion in debt. Since the last crash in 2008 we've borrowed 12 trillion, printed 4 trillion, ran half trillion trade deficits and had rates at zero. Its been 10 years since the last recession which is almost a record. By taking credit for the "booming" economy (same as the Obama "booming" economy), Trump (and all of you) are setting yourselves up for the blame when it crashes.

And don't tell me that you understand that all the debt and money printing and ZIRP is bad. No you don't. If you did you wouldn't be constantly bragging about how "great" things are.

[Zippyjuan]

Just another election promise not to be fulfilled but to play to voters after concern over sharply rising deficits was announced last week. It was asked that each Cabinet Secretary (except defense) offer a plan to reduce their spending by 5%. That covers less than $500 billion in a $4 trillion budget. The "cuts" would be about $25 billion in that $4 trillion budget and won't really happen unless Congress passes a spending bill which reduces that spending since they are the ones responsible for taxes and spending. All hat and no cattle as they say. He wants at least that much more in spending for his wall and border security.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299), will you admit that you were wrong about Trump's yuge deregulation?

Post #55 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527519-Vid-Trump-demands-5-budget-cut-from-each-Dept-head-at-White-House-Mtg&p=6694360&viewfull=1#post6694360)


The $600 M was just what it cost the government to enforce the regulations.

No, it's the estimate of the annual economic impact.

From the guidance published by the Trump administration about how to apply the EO:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf


V. Accounting Questions

Q21. How should costs and cost savings be measured?

A: Except where noted in other portions of this guidance, costs should be estimated using the methods and concepts appearing in OMB Circular A-4. There are several types of impacts that, under O MB Circular A-4, could be reasonably categorized as either benefits or costs, with the only difference being the sign (positive or negative) on the estimates. In most cases where there is ambiguity in the categorization of impacts, agencies should conform to the accounting conventions they have followed in past analyses. For example, if medical cost savings due to safety regulations have historically been categorized as benefits rather than reduced costs, they should continue to be categorized as benefits for EO 13771 regulatory actions. Identifying cost savings, such as fuel savings associated with energy efficiency investments, as benefits is a common accounting convention followed in O IRA’s reports to Congress on the benefits and costs of Federal regulations.

...


The White House said it had eliminated regulatory costs totaling $23 billion in the most recent budget

That figure isn't the annual savings; it's the present value of the annual savings out to infinity, discounted at 7%.

https://reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_AM_12072017.pdf


Annualized Value v. Present Value.

The above chart uses the present value of regulatory and deregulatory actions. Annualized value and present value are different forms of the same summary numbers. With a perpetual time horizon and a 7 percent discount rate, a present value can be transformed into its contemporaneous annualized value by multiplying by 0.07.



Incidentally, the final report for FY 2018 (link above) gives an annual savings of 1.64 billion, or well under 0.1% of the total regulatory burden.

P.S. As to that percentage, here (http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf) is a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, which put the total cost of federal regulation at $2.028 trillion annually in 2012. Even if we use that figure, i.e. ignoring both inflation and the growth of the regulatory state, Trump's $1.64 billion in annual savings equals 0.08% of the total. If Trump were to continue his yuge deregulation at this rate, we'd halve the burden in about 600 years.

[Swordsmyth]

So, @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299), will you admit that you were wrong about Trump's yuge deregulation?
If you admit that you were as well.



The deregulation is a rounding error relative the total cost of regulation, $600 million/year

Incidentally, the final report for FY 2018 (link above) gives an annual savings of 1.64 billion


P.S. As to that percentage, here (http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf) is a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, which put the total cost of federal regulation at $2.028 trillion annually in 2012. Even if we use that figure, i.e. ignoring both inflation and the growth of the regulatory state, Trump's $1.64 billion in annual savings equals 0.08% of the total. If Trump were to continue his yuge deregulation at this rate, we'd halve the burden in about 600 years.
Maybe if we get the Demoncrats out of Congress and the right kind of judges appointed he can start to cut regulations even faster.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Just another election promise not to be fulfilled....


Oh no! Campaign promises going unfulfilled is unprecedented!

Is he taking someone else to the prom, too?







https://slm-assets1.secondlife.com/assets/2635470/view_large/_PROMISE.Engraving.Rings.Ad.jpg?1291760332

[r3volution 3.0]

If you admit that you were as well.

Both the $600 million and $1.64 billion figures were based on documents published by the Trump administration.

The $600 million figure was for part of a fiscal year. The $1.64 billion figure was the final report for the whole fiscal year.

You never read either, you simply bought the fake news from FOX that Trump had engaged in some great deregulation.

Do you now, presented with the facts, complements of r3vo wasting his time to bring them to you, admit that these changes are trivial?

[Swordsmyth]

Both the $600 million and $1.64 billion figures were based on documents published by the Trump administration.

The $600 million figure was for part of a fiscal year. The $1.64 billion figure was the final report for the whole fiscal year.

You never read either, you simply bought the fake news from FOX that Trump had engaged in some great deregulation.

Do you now, presented with the facts, complements of r3vo wasting this time to bring them to you, admit that these changes are trivial?
I do not admit that $1.64 B is trivial especially as a change of direction from adding Billions more in costs every year.

Given time and the right support he may do much better yet.

[r3volution 3.0]

I do not admit that $1.64 B is trivial especially as a change of direction from adding Billions more in costs every year.

Given time and the right support he may do much better yet.

You don't admit that $1.64 billion out of 2.028 trillion (0.08%) is trivial?

[Danke]

You don't admit that $1.64 billion out of 2.028 trillion (0.08%) is trivial?

It is. Now if they did this every year...

[r3volution 3.0]

It is. Now if they did this every year...

...we'd eliminate the problem in 1236 years.

[Swordsmyth]

You don't admit that $1.64 billion out of 2.028 trillion (0.08%) is trivial?
It isn't, it may be proportionally small but it isn't trivial, especially as a change of direction from adding Billions more, he should be getting credit for the Billions in increases that didn't happen in addition to the $1.64 B decrease.

[Swordsmyth]

...we'd eliminate the problem in 1236 years.
Maybe we should help him to be able to eliminate regulations at a faster rate?

[r3volution 3.0]

It isn't, it may be proportionally small but it isn't trivial, especially as a change of direction from adding Billions more, he should be getting credit for the Billions in increases that didn't happen in addition to the $1.64 B decrease.


Maybe we should help him to be able to eliminate regulations at a faster rate?



http://i.imgur.com/GtKnI9M.jpg

[Danke]

...we'd eliminate the problem in 1236 years.

5% a year? I think your math is a bit off.

[r3volution 3.0]

5% a year? I think your math is a bit off.

$2028 billion / $1.64 billion = 1236.58

[Danke]

$2028 billion / $1.64 billion = 1236.58

You are not good a math. That figure would be reduced by 5% every year.

[oyarde]

Oh no! Campaign promises going unfulfilled is unprecedented!

Is he taking someone else to the prom, too?







https://slm-assets1.secondlife.com/assets/2635470/view_large/_PROMISE.Engraving.Rings.Ad.jpg?1291760332

The Gal I bought one of those when I was 15 is going to be disappointed if she sees this one . Pretty fancy . LOL

[CCTelander]

It isn't, it may be proportionally small but it isn't trivial, especially as a change of direction from adding Billions more, he should be getting credit for the Billions in increases that didn't happen in addition to the $1.64 B decrease.


Right. And the serial rapist who reduces the INCREASE in the number of rapes he commits per year, and reduces the ones he actually commits by 0.08% deserves credit for those additional rapes he decided not to commit? What kind of sick, twisted logic arrives at such a farcical conclusion? SMGDH

[Swordsmyth]

Right. And the serial rapist who reduces the INCREASE in the number of rapes he commits per year, and reduces the ones he actually commits by 0.08% deserves credit for those additional rapes he decided not to commit? What kind of sick, twisted logic arrives at such a farcical conclusion? SMGDH
:rolleyes:

[r3volution 3.0]

You are not good a math. That figure would be reduced by 5% every year.

If you're talking about the proposed/imaginary 5% cut in non-defense discretionary spending, that has nothing to do with it at all.

The $2028 billion is the economic cost of federal regulation. It has nothing to do with the budget.

They let you fly planes?

[Danke]

If you're talking about the proposed/imaginary 5% cut in non-defense discretionary spending, that has nothing to do with it at all.

The $2028 billion is the economic cost of federal regulation. It has nothing to do with the budget.

They let you fly planes?

Yes they do, I have a degree in Mathematics, but I guess reading comprehension is not one of my skills.

What are you trying to say, a annual cut of 5% will not reduce the size of government spending?

If not, what is needed?

[Anti Federalist]

Here's the thing... Trump wrote a book about playing to people's fantasies. It's part of his con. In this case, he's playing to my fantasies about cutting government spending. I can see how easy it is to get caught up in it. I want to believe it. It's my hope speaking. Trump, like Obama, is incredibly adept at manipulating people's hopes. So I'm very cautiously optimistic.

Fair point, no doubt.

But is he playing to those fantasies by offering ephemeral and non existent policies, or by offering very real ones, that are too little to do any good?

Me, personally, he, as the executive, has rolled back numerous restrictions on my line of work.

I am now making more money than I have in the last five years, due in no small part to rollbacks of those burdensome regulations.

[Danke]

Right. And the serial rapist who reduces the INCREASE in the number of rapes he commits per year, and reduces the ones he actually commits by 0.08% deserves credit for those additional rapes he decided not to commit? What kind of sick, twisted logic arrives at such a farcical conclusion? SMGDH


I did not really read what this does, just there is a decrease of 5%.

so you are saying the increase is actually more than 5%? So a 5% decrease is still a net increase in spending, for perpetuity?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes they do, I have a degree in Mathematics, but I guess reading comprehension is not one of my skills.

What are you trying to say, a annual cut of 5% will not reduce the size of government spending?

If not, what is needed?

We're not talking about government spending at all.

We're talking about the economic damage done by government regulation.

That amounts to $2028 billion per year (conservatively estimated).

Trump's "deregulation" reduces that cost by $1.64 billion per year (or 0.08% of the total).

Hence, it will take well over 1200 years to eliminate that $2028 billion annual cost at a rate of $1.64 billion per year.

In other words, the "deregulation" is nothing: PR.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes they do, I have a degree in Mathematics, but I guess reading comprehension is not one of my skills.

What are you trying to say, a annual cut of 5% will not reduce the size of government spending?

If not, what is needed?
We are discussing the economic benefits of Trump's regulation cuts, so far they have been proportionally small compared to the overall regulatory burden but they still aren't trivial and given the proper support he may yet do much better.

[Danke]

Fair point, no doubt.

But is he playing to those fantasies by offering ephemeral and non existent policies, or by offering very real ones, that are too little to do any good?

Me, personally, he, as the executive, has rolled back numerous restrictions on my line of work.

I am now making more money than I have in the last five years, due in no small part to rollbacks of those burdensome regulations.

Less restrictions on AF doesn’t sound good, donnay.

[Danke]

We are discussing the economic benefits of Trump's regulation cuts, so far they have been proportionally small compared to the overall regulatory burden but they still aren't trivial and given the proper support he may yet do much better.


OK, I thought it was the budget, thanks for the clarification.

[Danke]

We're not talking about government spending at all.

We're talking about the economic damage done by government regulation.

That amounts to $2028 billion per year (conservatively estimated).

Trump's "deregulation" reduces that cost by $1.64 billion per year (or 0.08% of the total).

Hence, it will take well over 1200 years to eliminate that $2028 billion annual cost at a rate of $1.64 billion per year.

In other words, the "deregulation" is nothing: PR.


Ok, it is regulation costs. Still if that is reduced 5% a year, I mathematically don’t see it taking very long to be a significant reduction.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ok, it is regulation costs. Still if that is reduced 5% a year, I mathematically don’t see it taking very long to be a significant reduction.

:confused:

What the hell is this 5%?

Even if Trump cuts 5% of non-defense discretionary spending (which he won't), it has no effect on the regulatory-state.

There is no proposal on the table to cut regulations 5% per year, nor will there be.

[Danke]

:confused:

What the hell is this 5%?

Even if Trump cuts 5% of non-defense discretionary spending (which he won't), it has no effect on the regulatory-state.

There is no proposal on the table to cut regulations 5% per year, nor will there be.

I guess I am misreading your posts.

[Danke]

Very confusing. I watched the Trump video. He says a 5% budget costs, then in this thread it gets into regulatory cuts.

Which is it?

[Swordsmyth]

Very confusing. I watched the Trump video. He says a 5% budget costs, then in this thread it gets into regulatory cuts.

Which is it?

The thread was about budget cuts, Phill4Paul brought up the regulatory cuts as a side issue while arguing with R3v and I joined in when R3v claimed the regulatory cuts were only worth $600 M.

[eleganz]

We're not talking about government spending at all.

We're talking about the economic damage done by government regulation.

That amounts to $2028 billion per year (conservatively estimated).

Trump's "deregulation" reduces that cost by $1.64 billion per year (or 0.08% of the total).

Hence, it will take well over 1200 years to eliminate that $2028 billion annual cost at a rate of $1.64 billion per year.

In other words, the "deregulation" is nothing: PR.

So you want all or nothing? Or is actual measurable progress not good enough?

If it was Rand taking all of these actions, you wouldn't be happy about it? I'm content now and would be even happier if it were Rand.

[Zippyjuan]

:confused:

What the hell is this 5%?

Even if Trump cuts 5% of non-defense discretionary spending (which he won't), it has no effect on the regulatory-state.

There is no proposal on the table to cut regulations 5% per year, nor will there be.

He asked for five percent cuts from cabinet departments- not the entire budget- and excluding the Department of Defense. That (if Congress passed a law calling for that- they determine spending and taxes) would reduce the $4 trillion budget (or the $1 trillion deficit) by about $24 billion. Six tenths of one percent of the entire budget. It is just for show. Only reason he even suggested it is the criticism Republicans are facing for the soaring budget deficits. When Reagan saw soaring deficits after signing the then record tax cuts, he signed another bill raising taxes to keep the deficit from getting too large. Trump likes borrowed money- in both his business and in government. Let somebody else worry about paying for things while he gets the gains.

[Zippyjuan]

Have regulations been reduced? https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-numbers/


Regulations

The growth of federal regulation slowed significantly under Trump, though it hasn’t yet come to the “sudden, screeching and beautiful halt” he claims.

The number of restrictive words and phrases (such as “shall,” “prohibited” or “may not”) contained in the Code of Federal Regulations rose by 6,973 between the day Trump was sworn in and Jan. 16, 2018, according to daily tracking done by the QuantGov project at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

That’s an increase of 0.6 percent since he took office, which is well below the average annual growth under each of his two most recent predecessors. Annual QuantGov tracking figures show the average increase in restrictive words in the CFR was just under 1.5 percent during both the Obama years and the George W. Bush years.

The Mercatus Center database provides a hard count of specific legal mandates and prohibitions imposed by federal regulators, which we find to be more relevant than counts of the number of pages or words in the rulebook. It doesn’t attempt to assess the cost or benefit of any particular rule — such assessments require a degree of guesswork and are sensitive to assumptions. But it does track the sheer volume of federal rules with more precision than we have found in other metrics.

[r3volution 3.0]

So you want all or nothing? Or is actual measurable progress not good enough?

If it was Rand taking all of these actions, you wouldn't be happy about it? I'm content now and would be even happier if it were Rand.

Small, trivially small, improvements are all well and good in themselves.

The problem is that people are being led to believe that these are major changes.

Remember the USA Freedom Act?

IIRC, it made a few trivial changes in the right direction, but was essentially a PR move to distract people.

...to make them think that the problem had been solved.

This is the same thing. If "Trump's deregulation" is perceived as major, there goes the political will to do something that actually matters.

[Aratus]

Have regulations been reduced? https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-numbers/

He'd have to cut in half the Pentagon budget to remotely counterbalance his whopping big tax cut.

[TheCount]

And then it was never mentioned again.

[enhanced_deficit]

And then it was never mentioned again.


Leaders have to deal with many issues, topics changed afterwards to other pressing issues.

Trump: I want to scrap all H1B visas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527029-Trump-I-want-to-scrap-all-H1B-visas&p=6733646&viewfull=1#post6733646)

[juleswin]

Leaders have to deal with many issues, topics changed afterwards to other pressing issues.

Trump: I want to scrap all H1B visas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527029-Trump-I-want-to-scrap-all-H1B-visas&p=6733646&viewfull=1#post6733646)

He also tried to repeal birth right citizenship. Lots of bold talk from that man

[r3volution 3.0]

And then it was never mentioned again.

Tucker Carlson (true libertarian hero) saw fit to devote 3 prime time hours in 3 days to some story about some kids and some Indian.

Such trivialities as the impending collapse of the entire socialistic hulk of what was once the civilized world aren't worthy of mention.