Clinton in Iowa: "... unnecessary regulation that has put a damper on economic growth"

[cali]

Before I post the article, I want to make note/comment on a couple of things. OK, staged events for politicians are the standard- so many DUer Hillary supporters say. Fine. But then a listening tour with hand-picked folks pretty meaningless, right? If she's really listening in order to formulate policy, she needs to be hearing from people who aren't hand-picked supporters. And btw,it would be highly unusual for a candidate not to have their policies on most issues ready to go when they announce.

The other things I want to point out is I find her statement that regulation and red tape are the problem with economic growth, curious, and I'd like to know what she meant by keeping the best parts of the ACA.

And sooner or later she's going to have to answer questions from reporters.

Yeah, yeah. I'm just a hater. A basher. My criticism and questions are inappropriate. Just thought I'd save some folks the trouble of tossing those at me. Seriously, if you find this post reflective of "hate" or "bashing", DU has a problem.




In her second day on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton rolled ahead with what has emerged as largely a listening tour, laying out only broad strokes of her policy agenda.

Clinton appeared more relaxed Wednesday during her second event in Iowa, where she presented herself as a champion of small-business owners, a reformer on immigration and a policy wonk when it comes to health care. She pledged to keep the best of Obamacare and talked generally about the need for economic competitiveness and growth.

“Slowly over time, it’s become more difficult, more expensive, more red tape, unnecessary regulation that has put a damper” on economic growth, she said. She praised the “virtuous cycle” of consumers jump-starting the economy with more spending.

But she remained light on policy details, saying that “before I roll out my policies, I want to hear from you on the front lines.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-iowa-campaign-trail-policy-agenda-117005.html#ixzz3XT0hi2Bh

[orpupilofnature57]

1. I have no problem with inappropriate questions or the truth, but she will . n/t

[peacebird]

2. What regulations does she feel are just 'red tape' hindering growth? And what parts of ACA

Is she prepared to jetison?

[DefenseLawyer]

5. If a Democrat is going to spout such things

She better be ready to immediately give concrete examples of what she's talking about. Otherwise she just sounds like every Republican in the world. Wages? Outsourcing? Like hell you say! Red Tape! Spotted owls! Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

[cali]

30. I'm waiting.... but not holding my breath

[zeemike]

64. That was my first thought too.

It sounds like a Republican talking point...perhaps she wants to appeal to them.
Or perhaps she is trying to condition us to accept those things, because if you are wild about Hillary you will have to justify that in your mind.

[Hoppy]

6. E.P.A., Banking reforms enacted after the 2008 fiasco.

Actually, we shouldn't worry. She is just trying to get teabagging votes.


You watch. When she gets to be elected, we will all have smiles on our faces and then we will be glad we didn't vote for Bernie.

[Volaris]

43. suuuuuuurrrreeeee we will. Oh well, this is what primary fights are for.

[msanthrope]

31. Tax regs. Obama ran on the same issue in 2008 and 2012....reform of the

Tax code. Right now, our tax code tends to favor large corporations, not small business.

[boston bean]

42. Yeah and how the one guy can't get a loan for his business because of his student loan debt...

I mean these are the concerns of right wingers... right... ??

[msanthrope]

45. Precisely...when did making the tax code fair stop being a progressive value? nt

[workinclasszero]

96. Since Hillary started running for the nomination

The purists didnt care about President Obama saying the same things.

But Hillary is held to a much higher standard. One she will never meet unless she walks on water, blindfolded and both hands tied behind her back!

Why is Hillary held to a much higher standard?

[DefenseLawyer]

50. What does that problem have to do with burdensome "regulations"?

on small businesses, or the tax code? Student loan debt is a problem, but that wasn't what they were talking about.

[demwing]

74. SSHH! You are blocking the flow of talking points!

Nothing must block the flow.

[RiverLover]

3. Spoken like a true republican. /nt

[4dsc]

18. That was my first thought too

if I was blind and deaf and was told this I would think for sure she was a republican.

[morningfog]

4. Right. These hand picked round tablers were chosen because of

what they would say. Now Hillary has heard from the people she chose, who have offered her their opinions to which she already agreed.

Soon, she will be using the narrative in her stump speeches: "I spoke to Dave Businessman in Iowa who is struggling to keep going because of over-taxation. I heard from Jane Mother who told me...."

It's an artificial construct that is quite transparent. She's been planning her run for president since 2008 and in earnest the last two years. This slow "roll out" of her platform through a staged listening tour is silly. Following this frame her campaign is using, as of now her sole motivation in running is that she wants to win, personal ambition. Ambition is necessary, it is required, but it has to be supported by issues and policies.

[cali]

7. I'm willing to concede to the Hillary supporters that it's standard that campaigns

are filled with these kinds of things. And I'm willing to say I don't know why she's running. I'm actually struggling to find the positives with Hillary, mf- beyond that she's better than any republican and good, if not ahead of the curve on social issues such as marriage equality. It's hard to do when she's so opaque about policy.

I'm pretty resigned to her being the nominee, but I have grave concerns about her convictions and judgment.

[morningfog]

9. I don't disagree. Obviously, she's much better than any

Republican. I have concerns about what her policies are or will become. And I have concerns about her judgment, leadership and transparency. I don't trust her as a campaigner. What I mean by that, is I don't know that she would or could win the general election.

[Gary 50]

72. You mean

better than any other Republican?

[kath]

94. Ding ding ding ding we have a WINNAH!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Based on those words, I would say that various folks on DU were right.

She doesn't need to worry about losing votes on the left, because she's not interested in them at all. She plans to win "crossover" Republican votes through patented Clinton triangulation. And unless Republicans actually do nominate someone who is seen as a real moderate, she's probably right. If the Repubs put up one of the Conservative whackadoodles, a lot of middle of the road Repubs will do just that and vote for the 'pro-business' candidate. She only runs into problems if it's another 'economic' Republican that gets run - Bush, Walker.

[cali]

10. I think she does want votes from the left, but she knows the left

is captive- we won't vote for repubs and most of us who are not supporters will vote for us. She's tossing out vague platitudes to the left about CEO pay and meaningless "solutions" like an utterly impossible Constitutional Amendment for CU. She's suddenly on board with Marriage Equality being a constitutional right- a year ago she said it should be left up to the states, and she waited to endorse that until it was clear that a majority supports it- hardly a profile in courage. Kind of like she waited years to repudiate her vote for the IWR.

She has a history of waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. That depresses me.

[pangaia]

73. I tend to agree with your perceptions of the whole thing.

There are so many to the extremes about her, your position' seems the most, well perceptive...to me.

Obviously everything, absolutely everything during each day is planned to the nth degree. This idea of a 'listening tour' makes me almost want to throw up. But, some group of advisers or come computer program has figured that this ridiculous concept will still be believed be enough people to pretend it is true.

ANYONE, who wants to be president mush have an absolutely tremendous ego, and be a little nuts in the bargain. Service to the country? maaaaybe a little, in certain people. But how many politicians really want to 'serve.' If they serve, why not do it for free? I know.. I know.

She does have her own take on things, I am sure. But she also, as any politician, will to whatever degree, follow the wind..

My plan was to never ever comment on any Clinton thread here, as I am already sick of hearing about her. Which of course was her plan from the start. Suffocate everything. Suck all the air out so no fires can start.

But your comments have been...well they seem to be made with non-attachment and, right or wrong, with eyes wide open.

[cali]

90. thank you. I try.

[pangaia]

97. You know, going back and reading my reply to you,

It sounded a little anti- Clinton.
That was not my intent at all.

I am neither for or against her----I don't honestly know the truth. but I am certainly for her against the opposition.

[deutsey]

65. As a Bush, Jeb should be automatically disqualified from running

From his grandfather's dealings with the Nazis, to his father's failed presidency, to GW's disastrous two terms, to Neil and his Silverado fiasco, and God knows what else...a Bush always leaves the country and the world a much worse place than what it was before he came along (but they always come out of the mess a lot wealthier, somehow).

[PassingFair]

82. Until she is forced to debate.

Then the real issues will rear up.

I'm sending money to any democrat who is running against her.

Not that it's much...I think of it as paying for a ticket to a debate that I
REALLY want to hear.

[sendero]

11. "Unnecessary regulation"....

.... like Glass-Stegall or the controls on derivatives removed by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

More pandering to the 1% so they can just finish off the middle class.

[cali]

12. I just want to know what she's referring to when she speaks about

red tape and unnecessary regulation. But I'm told repeatedly by her supporters it's unfair to ask her to expound and to give actual policies, that it's too early and she needs to hear from real people. And I think I'll keep hearing that for the next 6 months or so.

[sendero]

13. I could probably agree....

.... that Dodd-Frank has some provisions that are of somewhat questionable value. But one has to keep in mind that this was done IN LIEU of what should have ACTUALLY been done, which is the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall.

The banks should shut up. They still get to gamble in the markets with taxpayer backed funds. What the hell else do they want?

[leftofcool]

29. I can give you an example of what she is probably talking about

I was going to open a small coffee shop and used bookstore and after 2 years of filling out paper work, trying to get a business license, trying to comply with rules and red tape, I gave up. it wasn't worth it. Paper work kept getting lost by the PTB and other stupid things. Maybe, if we made it easier for folks like me to open businesses, more small businesses would open.

[cali]

38. she doesn't say. I've been told repeatedly by her supporters

it's unfair to extrapolate and to wait. same has to hold true for you. Btw, it sounds as if you're talking about STATE regulations and red tape.

And I'd like to challenge your assertions. I live in Vermont which is consistently rated by the republicans as the worst state for small business start up because of our regulations and purported red tape. Funny isn't it that Vermont has one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship in the country:

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/smallbusiness/2013/06/18/best-places-entrepreneurs/2.html

[leftofcool]

47. Well, some of us can't afford to pack up and move to Vermont.

And some of us would like to have small businesses right where we live without all the red tape that goes into opening one. As well, why should I be able to get the same tax breaks as a big business.

[cali]

51. Again, Vermont is rated repeatedly as one of the worst places for small businesses

because of the regulatory burden and taxes. And yes, we do have heavy regulation here. and taxes. Yet Vermont has lots of small business startups.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2014-state-business-tax-climate-index

In any case, what YOU described is clearly STATE regulations. So what does Hillary have to do with that. Please tell me the FEDERAL regulations that hampered your attempts.

[leftofcool]

57. No, they were not all state regulations

With all due respect, some of this is personal information so perhaps you might try opening your own business and see if you have any of the same problems. Or talk to other small businesses to see what they might have gone through just to open up something.

[cali]

63. I have.

And there is no respect in making assumptions.

in any case, I can see that we're not having a fruitful discussion. I don't see how revealing the federal regulations you found prevented you from opening your business are personal, but oh well.

The defensiveness with which so many of Hillary's supporters employ, makes discussion nigh on impossible.

Have a good day.

[Cal Carpenter]

77. *raises hand*

I recently opened a small business - officially incorporated in early 2013, doors opened in late summer of that year. (and by small, I mean very small - me, my spouse and one employee who works ~10 hrs a week).

It wasn't super easy to navigate that stuff, but neither is the day-to-day operations in general. If you can't file some paperwork with the state and federal government on your own, or with a couple hundred dollars to a lawyer, then I would think it may be better off that you gave up.

I think the taxes and filings on both the state and federal level could be simplified, and should be simplified, but they aren't impossible to navigate. Aside from annual business taxes, I do it all myself - sales tax filings, payroll and unemployment taxes to feds and the state.

On top of that, I highly doubt this is what Clinton was talking about anyway in terms of red tape, but thanks to her vagueness it can mean anything to anyone (which is the point of most political rhetoric anyway).

You may want to consider that, among the hundreds/thousands of regular posters on DU, there are many of us who have started small businesses and can see through your misinformation.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

86. Alright, dispense with the bullshit. Tell us the fed.gov regs that caused you to give up. And no

more of this "it's personal" bullshit.

Thank you.

[Cosmic Kitten]

80. Tax Breaks are not "Red Tape"

fyi

What "Red Tape" have you encountered?

[msanthrope]

36. She's referring to the same thing Obama ran on in 2008 and 2012....

reform of our tax code, which right now gives big business advantages over small business.

Jeebus.....you are familiar with the Democratic Party Platform, yes?

[boston bean]

39. It was in the context of America being ranked 46th in the creation of small business.

And Barack Obama said the same exact thing in 2008.

My oh my, how soon people forget. Selective memory or something... maybe hypocrisy!

[cali]

60. I can't find a quote from Obama saying the exact same thing

In any case, isn't it largely states responsible for small business regulation?

I did find this:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/03/24/obamas-slams-small-businesses-with-excessive-regulations


I don't know how accurate a reflection it is of his sb policies.


there is a lot of conflicting information, a lot of conflicting claims.

And your snark is just defensive shit.

Hypocrisy seems to be coming from Hillary supporters too- I am not hypocritical. I do not have a selective memory. I certainly may not remember things or may never have aware of them. That doesn't make me hypocritical. It is hypocritical to tell Hillary critics that they shouldn't extrapolate from her statements and then procede to do so in a favorable manner.

I attempt not to doubt the motives of supporters. I sure don't get the same courtesy.

[boston bean]

62. here, try this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026515903

[sendero]

88. That is because..

.... the bankers destroyed the economy with plenty of the Clinton's help. You are the one with no memory, or to be more charitable you probably never understood what is going on anyway.

[Enthusiast]

22. Unnecessary regulations are dirty words to me, especially when coming from a Clinton.

Deregulation in the 1990s caused tangible harm to the American working people and the world economy.

[kath]

95. +1000

[Scuba]

14. I'm really glad she's running and saying these things. I just wish ...

... she was running as a Republican.

[cali]

17. I find it disturbing that she's saying this stuff

and giving us no details.

So far, her campaign is not a surprise to me. She's coming out strong, if belatedly, on marriage equality. She's mentioning income inequality and the next day talking about over regulation of business. All in vague terms. Yes, I'm watching closely. Her supporters say I'm unfair, a hater, a basher. I'm not. I'm someone who pays attention and doesn't shut my eyes to inconsistencies.

[Renew Deal]

48. She's not the one missing details

Politico is.

[newfie11]

21. +1!!!! Nt

[Jester Messiah]

41. I guess she qualifies as a conservative democrat. [nt]

[Sancho]

15. What is gained by Hillary bashing?

At this point, there is NO WAY that ANY CANDIDATE will put a rock-solid policy statement out that will cost votes from the independents, middle-of-the-road voters, or demographic targets (women, etc.).

She is running a strategic campaign. Maybe it's a good plan, maybe not - but she obviously has advisors from Obama's camp and left over from Bill's campaign. She has experience as a politician and previous run.

These threads keep "demanding" policy and platform details that no experienced politician will ever put forward because that would only be fodder for criticism and alienate voters. Obama did the same thing - and frankly every winning President in my lifetime since the advent of TV and media has figured it out. Even JFK was an early winner by watching what he said on TV. Reagan essentially won on movie star personality, not policy or substance.

Hillary surely has awareness of TPP, regulatory agencies, economic policy, Wall Street, and universal medical care. The Democratic party will produce a platform with the primary winner; and they may or may not actually stick to it after the election.

Obama has been a mix of good and bad compared to his "promises", because every President is not just a set of policies. They make informed decisions based on intelligence, values, and judgment. Early bashing won't change anything unless another candidate steps forward that does better. I will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is.

The most revealing thing Hillary has said so far is about an amendment to stop Citizen's United. The next President might appoint a couple Supreme Court judges. Those legal decisions may be the thing we look for in a candidate, but that is not a sexy issue that farmers and factory workers vote for, so the campaign will be a set of orchestrated publicity stunts just like all good candidates will do.

It's unlikely a detailed commitment to progressive policies will show up on stone tablets, so if you want to bash, it's an illogical criticism. I respect the debate, but more important issues at this point would be manipulation of the election, funding of elections, Democratic apathy to showing up to vote, and getting more winners in state elections.

Hillary is where she is because of numerous historical events that won't change at this point. No other candidate has a viable campaign yet. Instead of losing a close or manipulated election like happened under Bush - let's get a winner on the ticket no matter who it is...

[cali]

23. You are wrong. The repub candidates and prospective candidates have given

specifics. They're horrific- and the major reason that I'll vote for Clinton in the general if, as is likely, she's the candidate- but they damn well are specific policies

You are wrong about Obama as well.

I am not looking for the perfect.

Your post is, alas, largely inaccurate and unresponsive.

and if you think the OP is bashing, that's just sad. There is nothing personal or insulting to Hillary in the OP.

As for whether or not her campaign is a good one, politically speaking, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Sancho]

52. We'll just have to disagree then...

the Jeb's and Cristy's haven't put forward any more specifics than the usual generalizations. Rand Paul has some off the wall mandates that almost everyone thinks are silly. In fact, the GOP debates and early specific positions while fighting with each other hurt Romney and others in the last election (particularly with independents).

I'm certainly not wrong about Obama. He ran largely on emotions and speeches. His few specifics that he promised have sometimes happened, and sometimes not. He certainly has been a disappointment with Wall Street, TPP, and education. Still, Obama is a world better than any more Bushes, so I'm glad to vote for a Democrat. Obama has done what he could with his situation - with the exception that he might have gone after Wall Street as strongly as he did Bin Ladin.

I think the OP is bashing, especially in light of a series of similar OP's. In other words, why not OP's that target the primary process, election manipulation, and ways to improve primaries in general. If anti-Hillary is not your goal, then it just doesn't come across that way to me. I'll take you at your word for now. I suspect it would be better to hold the Democratic party responsible for details as much as any candidate.

Given the long-time awareness of Clinton attacks by the GOP, it's an obvious strategy to avoid giving the "right-wing conspiracy" something more to make movies and commercials out of, so developing a party platform as the campaign emerges makes sense. That way it's the party and campaign that takes the heat while building the independent base.

Hillary has historically demonstrated clear positions on women's rights, health care, and even a foreign policy agenda (again she was sometimes doing what Obama wanted, so maybe not what she would have done independently). She likely has some better ideas about education (her work in Arkansas was revealing), and has even moved in the Warren direction lately. It's obvious that she is listening. Obama is right about one thing, and Hillary seems to get it: an open war with the capitalists is not likely to be as good a winner as some kind of strategy to use courts and oversight to reign them in over time (if possible).

As you say, we'll just have to wait and see.

[jeff47]

89. Really?

At this point, there is NO WAY that ANY CANDIDATE will put a rock-solid policy statement out that will cost votes from the independents, middle-of-the-road voters, or demographic targets (women, etc.).

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz say "Hi".

[Sancho]

93. It's easy to be a loser....and I was mostly referring to Democrats, but it applies to repubs...

name me a primary winner in the last 4 decades who put out a solid set of promises almost 2 years before the election.

You make my point. Here's one of Rubio's statements on his website. It's nothing but fluff and party rhetoric!

"We should propose common sense, free-market ideas to make health care more accessible and affordable. Senator Rubio will focus on three goals: repealing and replacing Obamacare; allowing individuals to control their own health care choices; and returning control of health policy to the states. In January 2011, Senator Rubio signed on as an original co-sponsor—his first bill as a co-sponsor—of legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to fully repeal the health care bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010."

Here's some stuff from Cruz:

"Opposed the Obama Administration’s dangerous deal with Iran that would allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Spearheaded legislation passed unanimously by Congress and signed by the President to prevent known terrorists from entering the United States as ambassadors to the United Nations."

You can get a few statements here an there, but no winning candidate has a detailed platform before they are done with the primary. Even the statements you get are usually obvious (taxes, SS, etc.).

Notice what happened to Ross Perot (for example). Good old Marco has caught hell from all sides for nothing more than some introductory comments (like "1999" etc.).

Obama ran on "change" in the early days (remember). After he got into the debates, he set some goals (getting troops home, closing Gitmo, etc.). Some of those things happened. Obama and Hillary struggled to debate and find things they disagreed on...and tough issues like gay marriage were sidestepped even 10 years ago by our current President!

Even the newbie's like Christie, Rubio, and Paul are tip-toeing. Cruz is crazy. What good would it do to proclaim something that even the GOP won't support if you are the candidate. Rubio changes his immigration policy every day (I know, we hear every time he does).

The experienced politicians stick to generalities until they get much closer to the election. They have a party platform, and then they look for ways to win the last debate - and maybe they will come out with a promise or two to separate them from the pack or because its a winner in the polls with their likely voters. There no advantage in getting too specific too early. It only makes you a target.

[hobbit709]

16. That's Wall St. talking.

[on point]

19. Regulations are he problem is a RW talking point and she shouldn't be fostering it

Regulations are a problem if you are a corp predator and want to take advantage of others, trash the environment etc.If your business model can't handle the regulations, then you probably have too many externalities and shouldn't be in business.

Regulations can actually reduce costs, especially for the consumer.

[Novara]

33. damn right

I don't want to hear RW talking points coming from her.

[Buzz Clik]

20. "I'd like to know what she meant by keeping the best parts of the ACA." Me, too.

Does she intend to keep the expanded coverage and dump the insurance companies, getting us back to the original intent -- single payer?

I sure as hell hope so.

[cali]

26. I see no indication that she wants single payer- judging from the comments she made

about expanding insurance co competition in the states.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Let's find someone to run against her.

[turbinetree]

70. I agree

We have been given a small insight into her thinking this time around---and it has problems lots of them and I do not trust her, she has a very strong senate voting record, but........
As for the clown show on the other side-----all of them are dangerous because they will have a combined corrupted campaign funding / bribing system of over 3+ billion.
And this next election is about the U.S. Supreme court no if's or and's about it-----it is always about the U.S. Supreme Court and when the voters think about this, all they have to do is look around them and see the damage this present court has eviscerated on the country

[Buzz Clik]

78. The Republicans have nothing to offer. Screw 'em.

Let's get a viable candidate who supports our values unflinchingly.

[Doctor_J]

34. she stated that SP will not happen while she's president.

So no. We will never get big insurance out of the government, thanks in large part to the ACA

[Buzz Clik]

35. I guess she intends to cut from ACA some of the good stuff. Wonderful.

[Renew Deal]

49. How about you stop guessing

[cali]

68. I agree with that. And that should include all the Hillary supporters

in this thread who are doing just that.

I just want to know what she thinks should be changed in the ACA.

I will say that increasing competition across state lines for insurers, is problematic to me.

[Buzz Clik]

76. +1

[Buzz Clik]

75. I don't take orders from you.

Obama barely managed to cobble ACA together, but she wants to start chopping, but not to give us what we all wanted.

So, yeah -- no guessing. She will not work toward single payer. We know that. I want someone else. No guesswork there: I do not support Hillary's candidacy in the Democratic primary. I want someone else.

Thanks, by the way, for pushing me off the fence.

[cali]

79. I didn't in any way, shape or form issue an order.

and I'm not sure what fence you're talking about, but it's obvious that I don't support Hillary

[Cosmic Kitten]

81. Buzz was posting to Renew, not you

[Renew Deal]

85. I'm not giving orders. I'm making a suggestion.

And what you chose to do is completely inconsequential to me.

"but she wants to start chopping" Link?

[mylye2222]

24. Deregulating only leads to mass unemployement

and cheaper workforce used in develloping nations insted of in Western world, as corporatists prefer to walk on work and human right and decency.
This result in organized poverty in bith Western and eastern world, and on both side human rights regression.

Isnt that deregulating she praises that led to the endless economic crisis we are still living?

[DrKZ]

98. Agreed

I agree with you ... when someone speaks of deregulation of business practices they are not speaking of a store you want to open or a small business ... we are talking of neoliberal trade practices that have created the sort of economy that we have right now where the rich get richer and those without continue to work harder and longer for less and less. It is an affront the union movement often couched in reformist language.
An example is educational "reform" which permitted the dismantling of our public education system in favor of educational management corporations bought and sold on the stock exchange. Regulations and red tape are things like teacher tenure and professionalism. At state universities most of the teaching force is now adjuncts who do not even get basic benefits.
Her deregulation has lead to disasters environmentally and the most slave labor used at any time in history (I am not being hyperbolic check the data here is a website speaking out against it).
Her neo-liberal economic policies are not the policies of what the democratic party ought to be about and that deregulation has not only led to the endless economic crisis but to environmental disasters ....

[uponit7771]

25. fuck

[msanthrope]

27. Obama ran on the same issue in 2008 and 2012....small business

Tax regs are no mean feat to deal with, and our tax code is skewed towards larger corporations rather than encouraging small businesses and startups. That needs change.

This has been the Democratic Party stance for about a decade now.

[Orsino]

28. Just close your eyes, everybody...

...and keep chanting "Supreme Court. Supreme Court."

Goddammit, this depresses me.

[DeadLetterOffice]

53. +1

[progressoid]

83. Yeah, apparently we aren't voting for POTUS, we're voting for SCOTUS.

[Doctor_J]

32. I do appreciate that she will be honest about her corporatism. Obama's pretense of

populism was a crushing blow, and a big reason why the party has been decimated. With HRC we know what we're getting

[cali]

44. I disagree. I see her sending conflicting messages to appeal/appease various

prospective constituents. Talk about income inequality and how CEO pay is too high, then talk about changing the ACA to allow for more free market competition and over regulation.

[Jester Messiah]

40. Well, judging by her donor list I'm sure economic deregulation would be a top priority.

Citigroup and Goldman Sachs get what they paid for. The rest of us get the finger.

[DrDan]

46. heard those exact same words from jack welch and wife yesterday touting their new book

"regulation is hurting economic growth".

Funny how the concern is with business and their growth. Seems to be a complete lack of concern for those who benefit from regulation - us lowly consumers/voters.

Hate to hear H moving (?) in this direction.

[tiredtoo]

54. To all you folks calling Hillary a Republican here

Stop complaining and do something. Go to your local Democratic Party meetings and speak up. Spend a couple bucks and join the party. Volunteer for committees and let your voice be heard.
You can achieve better results from working on the inside than standing outside and shouting and fussing. If you do not believe that, just think about how the tea party has moved the Republican Party to the right.
You can do the same in the Democratic Party, if you get involved.

[Sunlei]

55. Small businesses had been the backbone of America. Local over regulation & outright laws forbidding

small 'family home based businesses' have killed that American dream.

“Slowly over time, it’s become more difficult, more expensive, more red tape, unnecessary regulation that has put a damper” on economic growth"

[BeanMusical]

56. Deregulation gave us this, 5 years ago:

I'm talking about the fervor for deregulation, the movement to eliminate federal laws that protect people and the environment.

That has been a battle cry for conservative politics for three decades. It was Ronald Reagan who famously made "get government off the backs of business," a winning strategy. And it was George W. Bush who pushed to rewrite the rule books for energy development on public property, rolling back protections for fish, wildlife, air and water under the banner of streamlining the nation's race for energy. That movement sought to turn 40 years of bipartisan environmental protection on its head, and it did.

Industry lobbyists and officials were appointed to key environmental positions with orders to make the environment safe for business -- especially the energy business. Agencies became boosters for development, not protectors of the public trust.
Louisiana's delegations, and most of its voters, cheered almost every step.

For our political leaders to act shocked that something like this could happen requires equal portions of gall and amnesia.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/oil_disaster_brought_to_you_by.html

[Liberalynn]

67. This

[bigtree]

58. as for a detailed platform

..."I will be rolling out very specific policies over the weeks and months ahead that I think are going to be at the core of not only a successful campaign, but much more importantly, getting our country to work again," Clinton told reporters.

She is expected to roll out her full policy platform in May or June, after a series of meetings like those of April 14 that will be held in early primary states.

http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/maya-harris-to-head-hillary-clinton-s-senior-policy-advisor/article_6eb6ca02-e3c1-11e4-bae1-37b10b43a118.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026514523

[jtuck004]

59. "unusual for a candidate not to have their policies on most issues ready to go " < I think that

assumes they have some firm principles to start with.

[onenote]

61. How upset were you by Obama's executive order regarding unnecessary regulation?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/10/executive-order-identifying-and-reducing-regulatory-burdens

[bullwinkle428]

66. Cali, I heard the sound clip of her "Let's keep what works" comments about the ACA

in the context of a conversation with small business owners. It sure came across to me as a desire to carve it up like the Thanksgiving turkey! If nothing else, DU will become a VEEEEEERRRRRRY INTERESTING (apologies to Arte Johnson) place once President Obama's signature legislation starts getting dismantled brick by brick.

[NCTraveler]

69. More context is needed.

But it is an accurate quote. Small business such as my own are inundated with regulations. I successfully steered my way through start up so it is easier on me today. What it does is it puts a barrier of entry in place for those thinking about starting their own small business. Today the game is rigged toward very large business. It is much easier for them to clear the barriers of opening up new locations, or a subsidiary swallowing up a whole new segment, putting mom and pops out of business. Evening the playing field by considering what it takes to start a small business in a big business world it a positive.

[imthevicar]

71. What Regulations!?

Like Food and workplace safety!?

[progressoid]

84. “before I roll out my policies, I want to hear from you on the front lines.”

So either she doesn't have concrete policies.

Or she's trying to find which way the wind is blowing before stating her policies are exactly what America wants.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Platitudes plus argle-bargle. The art of political speech making.

Also known as "triangulation".

[mmonk]

91. If the premise is false, the remedy will be wrong.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

92. "...unnecessary regulation ..."

Two words that generally have me running for the hills when said by a politician.