Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (49) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: The age problem
Date: 04/28/24 5:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
I realize they think that, but IMO they are not just wrong but disastrously wrong. They won't get what they are expecting or want.

What? No, they'll get exactly what they are expecting and want.

To use the above example again, they want an EPA that doesn't try to expand the scope of existing pollution control regulations. They want an EPA that isn't trying to adopt new carbon dioxide emissions requirements. They want an EPA that isn't trying to promote green building standards or escalate CAFE requirements.

What they expect and want from a Trump Presidency - from any Republican Presidency - is an Administration that will not be pursuing progressive administrative policies, but rather an Administration staffed with secretaries and directors that want to restrain the regulatory state. They want the regulatory agencies to shift resources away from enforcement and into permitting, they want the entitlements agencies to adopt stricter standards for qualification of benefits rather than more expansive ones, they want the infrastructure agencies (like DOT and HUD) to stop linking grants and financing to pursuing progressive goals.

Across the board, they want the federal government to stop making judgment calls that land on the progressive/Democratic side of issues, and instead make those judgment calls on the conservative/Republican side. For example, instead of rulings that Title IX requires letting trans athletes compete on teams of their identification, or that the waters of the United States include isolated wetlands, or that the CAA requires regulating carbon emissions...they want the opposite calls.

And they'll get all that. And they'll be content with the trade-off of having a loutish and awful President, knowing they got the Administration they wanted.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (49) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community