The Best Tax Proposal in the History of the World

[lilpixieofterror]

Don't assume. Ask questions.



I have. Many. Usually, they're in disarray when I come on board, and running efficiently before I leave.



It's what Trump ran and won on!



I'm not wild about Executive Orders by any modern president.



I think this falls in the category of taking Trump literally but not seriously.



The government, with its legitimate checks and balances, and extreme partisanship, and rules of procedure written and changed by whatever party is in power, is a really good example of a really badly run company. It's a "company" with far too many egos and agendas to do anything effectively. It's like the NFL being run by two opposing bitter rival teams, each team trying to structure the 'company' in a way that will ensure their own victory.

[Cow Poke]

If you think I have not asked questions, CP, then I have to assume you have not read my posts.

You have an odd way of asking questions. It's like you already assume you know where the person is going, and want to confirm that, rather than just flat out asking. And maybe this has to do with the whole "too many words" issue.

I like you, but I get lost in the walls of text sometimes.

[carpedm9587]

You have an odd way of asking questions. It's like you already assume you know where the person is going, and want to confirm that, rather than just flat out asking. And maybe this has to do with the whole "too many words" issue.

I do not find these questions odd: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post506249

I like you, but I get lost in the walls of text sometimes.

Fair enough.

[Cow Poke]

That may be it. I think he's hyper-focused on the EO and what it "says", and Trump is BY FAR not a "typical manager", and the government is BY FAR not a "typical company"....

And, yes, I admit I'm not reading every "back and forth", cause that can be so tedious. We don't converse like that in real life.

[carpedm9587]

My statement is that the EO provides a quantitative metric - not a qualitative metric. As such, it is a poor management practice. The truth of it is evident from the text of the EO. I have not assumed anything other than what I have said.

rather serious

I'm not sure what media trends has to do with the analysis of an EO. As for the rest, you appear to be making assumptions about me. You are free to do that if you wish, but it's not germaine to the observation. The argument, as made, stands.

Again, since I have never claimed to know the "whole story," I have no response. The available evidence is that the EO is a quantitative directive, and the reports from the WH are quantitative reports. There is no indication, anywhere I have been able to find, of a qualitative approach. Previous presidents had no difficulty articulating qualitative directives, and reporting qualitative results. That does not appear to be happening here, where a qualitative approach is clearly warranted. You seem to be insistent that it is happening, without any supporting evidence, so it does not appear that I am the one making assumptions. If you have evidence that qualitative metrics are being used, please present them. I'd love to look at them. As a matter of fact, I'd welcome them. The idea that our government is being poorly managed is not a great one.

You appear to be attempting to read my mind. Since I have previously posted on areas where I think Trump has made the right choice, your accusations here and elsewhere are simply not true. It would be helpful, in these discussions, if we could stay focused on what is actually being said, rather than all of the speculation on motivations, and all of the side-tangents, which tend to be irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

You appear to be attempting to read my mind. Since I have previously posted on areas where I think Trump has made the right choice....

Ah, so THAT's what TDS is! I get the context now!

[carpedm9587]

Ah, so THAT's what TDS is! I get the context now!

So TDS is...?


Totally Dissolved Solids
Technical Data Sheet
Tax Deducted at Source
The Daily Show
Tedious (Internet slang...and I think we have a winner! except that I went back and it doesn't seem to fit the contexts...so maybe not?)
Tabular Data Stream
etc. etc....

[Cow Poke]

So TDS is...?


Totally Dissolved Solids
Technical Data Sheet
Tax Deducted at Source
The Daily Show
Tedious (Internet slang...and I think we have a winner! except that I went back and it doesn't seem to fit the contexts...so maybe not?)
Tabular Data Stream
etc. etc....

OK, maybe I DON'T know what it means. I thought it was intended to be Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Zymologist]

OK, maybe I DON'T know what it means. I thought it was intended to be Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It's when you're over 6' tall and have to fly...Tall Dude Syndrome.

[carpedm9587]

OK, maybe I DON'T know what it means. I thought it was intended to be Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I'm sure it's something like that. When it comes to Mr. Trump, I am not deranged, but I admit to significant disdain, so I'm OK with "Trump Disdain Syndrome," though I'm not sure that adds much value to the discussion.

I probably approve of 1 thing out of every 5 that he does, if that. Of the things I approve, his methodology and approach for many (most?) I think suck pretty badly, as in this one. I would LOVE to see regulations "debloated." I would love to see evidence that some kind of qualitative approach is actually happening (even if I disagree with what constitutes "quality"). But I'm not going to jump on the "it probably is" bandwagon without evidence that it actually is.

[Cow Poke]

I'm sure it's something like that. When it comes to Mr. Trump, I am not deranged, but I admit to significant disdain, so I'm OK with "Trump Disdain Syndrome," though I'm not sure that adds much value to the discussion.

I probably approve of 1 thing out of every 5 that he does, if that. Of the things I approve, his methodology and approach for many (most?) I think suck pretty badly, as in this one. I would LOVE to see regulations "debloated." I would love to see evidence that some kind of qualitative approach is actually happening (even if I disagree with what constitutes "quality"). But I'm not going to jump on the "it probably is" bandwagon without evidence that it actually is.

Were you this concerned when the Obama administration added nearly 4,000 regulations adding nearly 34,000 pages to the Federal Registry? Depending on the source, this could add Billions or Hundreds of Billions of drag to the economy in regulatory compliance and reporting.

How bout giving your main concern in one or two (non run-on)* sentences.




*not that you actually do that, but it might be tempting given the limit of "one or two sentences"

[carpedm9587]

Were you this concerned when the Obama administration added nearly 4,000 regulations adding nearly 34,000 pages to the Federal Registry?

Depending on the source, this could add Billions or Hundreds of Billions of drag to the economy in regulatory compliance and reporting.

Yes - but not because of the numbers.

How bout giving your main concern in one or two (non run-on)* sentences.

I've actually done that in several places, but I'll do it here again:

EO 13771 and the reporting on progress from the WH suggests that deregulation is being managed quantitatively (i.e., a numbers game), rather than qualitatively (i.e., the value of the regulations). I submit that the quality of the regulations is more important than their number, and a quantitative approach is the wrong approach; it will surely reduce the number of regulations, but it does not ensure that good regulations have been retained and bad ones expunged.

OK - that was three sentences, but I cheated using a semi-colon.

*not that you actually do that, but it might be tempting given the limit of "one or two sentences"

Oh I do that. I suffer from MFS.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes - but not because of the numbers.



I've actually done that in several places, but I'll do it here again:

EO 13771 and the reporting on progress from the WH suggests that deregulation is being managed quantitatively (i.e., a numbers game), rather than qualitatively (i.e., the value of the regulations). I submit that the quality of the regulations is more important than their number, and a quantitative approach is the wrong approach; it will surely reduce the number of regulations, but it does not ensure that good regulations have been retained and bad ones expunged.

OK - that was three sentences, but I cheated using a semi-colon.



Oh I do that. I suffer from MFS.

How much time does it take to shift through 30,000 pages of material?

[lilpixieofterror]

My statement is that the EO provides a quantitative metric - not a qualitative metric. As such, it is a poor management practice. The truth of it is evident from the text of the EO. I have not assumed anything other than what I have said.

I'm not sure what media trends has to do with the analysis of an EO. As for the rest, you appear to be making assumptions about me. You are free to do that if you wish, but it's not germaine to the observation. The argument, as made, stands.

Again, since I have never claimed to know the "whole story," I have no response. The available evidence is that the EO is a quantitative directive, and the reports from the WH are quantitative reports. There is no indication, anywhere I have been able to find, of a qualitative approach. Previous presidents had no difficulty articulating qualitative directives, and reporting qualitative results. That does not appear to be happening here, where a qualitative approach is clearly warranted. You seem to be insistent that it is happening, without any supporting evidence, so it does not appear that I am the one making assumptions. If you have evidence that qualitative metrics are being used, please present them. I'd love to look at them. As a matter of fact, I'd welcome them. The idea that our government is being poorly managed is not a great one.

You appear to be attempting to read my mind. Since I have previously posted on areas where I think Trump has made the right choice, your accusations here and elsewhere are simply not true. It would be helpful, in these discussions, if we could stay focused on what is actually being said, rather than all of the speculation on motivations, and all of the side-tangents, which tend to be irrelevant.

[carpedm9587]

How much time does it take to shift through 30,000 pages of material?

Why does this matter?