Clinton: Unnecessary regulations thwart business growth

[PoliticAverse]

NORWALK, Iowa — Owners of Iowa small businesses told Hillary Clinton on Wednesday that problems they face include taxes that are too restrictive, an immigration system that doesn't allow them to hire workers they need, and health insurance expenses that continue to increase too much.

...

"Before I roll out my policies, I want to hear from people who are on the front lines," she said.

...

American business startups and small business creation is down, and a survey by the World Bank found that the United States ranks 46th in the world for ease of starting a business, Clinton told the business leaders, as several dozen reporters and about a dozen invited guests listened nearby.

"We need to be, we have to be, No. 1 again," she said. "Slowly over time it's become more difficult — more expensive, more red tape, unnecessary regulations that have really put a damper."

Read the rest at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/15/hillary-clinton-iowa-business/25840387/

[DURHAM D]

1. I don't know what this means -

"taxes that are too restrictive"

[IDemo]

14. Taxes that restrict them from buying titanium bathroom fixtures for the yacht....

[onenote]

31. Because you think the typical small business owner has a yacht

When your done with your vacation on planet fantasy, visit the real world.

She was talking to small business owners. Please identify what candidate you think will come out and say "I support unnecessary regulation of small businesses".

And how upset were you by Obama's executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/10/executive-order-identifying-and-reducing-regulatory-burdens

Poutrage. It's an ugly disease.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. It means

that when corporations have to pay taxes, it takes away money that could be going toward CEO bonuses.

[onecaliberal]

2. Come to California, taxes aren't the problem.

Profits for Business isn't the problem either stagnant wages are, slave wages are. Why do we subsidize corporations with aid for working class? Not because business is hurting!! That state is NOT representative of where america is.

[Ed Suspicious]

3. Don't like taxes? Invest in your business. Hire. Expand. Spend your money so you can avoid those

nasty taxes. That's all it takes.

[guillaumeb]

4. When anyone says the phrase "unnecessary regulations"

my response is to ask: unnecessary according to who?
Is a minimum wage law an example, or workmen's comp laws, or laws mandating non-discrimination?

Statements like that are so vague as to be meaningless.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Precisely, which is why it was phrased that way. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.

[guillaumeb]

57. allowing any candidate to be all things to all people.

Or allowing a candidate to stand for nothing, if one is cynical.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. "less restrictive taxes", fewer regulations, more H1B visas. Still a neoliberal.

Meanwhile the U6 unemployment rate (including "discouraged workers" who've given up looking and aren't counted in the top-line figures) is 12%.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Now where have I heard those sorts of words before...?

Seems to me there's some party that's constantly talking about 'unnecessary regulations' and businesses needing to hire foreign workers, rather than more expensive Americans...

[LittleBlue]

9. Yep. Remove Hillary's name from the title

and one would think this was the standard Republican spouting the usual talking points. Nope, it's our inevitable candidate

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. And you were expecting . . .?

[Purveyor]

7. "Before I roll out my policies, I want to hear from people who are on the front lines," she said.

Translated, she hasn't a clue...

[DJ13]

8. Didnt Mitt say the same thing in 2012?

[AtomicKitten]

10. Sounding like a Republican right out of the gate.

[RiverLover]

13. Yep.

Sad state of affairs.

[L0oniX]

45. Under the bus seating is reserved only. Make your rsvp now.

[Nay]

55. Yeah. Big surprise there. Now, go over to Bernie and listen to him asking us all to

help destroy the Koch brothers' power over everything.

Which of them sounds like a true Democrat and which sounds like a whining Republican for whom regulations can never be too lax?

[morningfog]

11. Before she rolls out her policies, she wants to hear from the

small business owners that she selected and bused to her round table?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Forget H>...it's why we need <E to jump into this race.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. I like that

<E

or even

<B

[daredtowork]

15. But are these regulations

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

the regulations put in place to help workers? Safety, health care, consistent hours, minimum wage? Are they talking about unions getting in the way?

There are of course a lot of "regulations" that refer to State bureaucracy and skimming. NPR ran a piece this morning about how people who fall back on the gig economy get shafted by tax make-work. The same thing happens to people on welfare or SSI who take gig work before getting a full time job: reporting it isn't worth the ensuing redtape gor either the person attempting to escape poverty or the case workers who must process the additional petty paperwork and adjust the resulting aid. Since the threats pertaining to not reporting are dire, better to not work and go hungry.

Hillary's new policy advisers are also supposed to roll out a platform that emphasizes "putting America back to work" - at least those poor schmucks that have to get a job instead of collecting fat fees for public speaking and sitting on corporate boards. The secret code here, however, is the promise to lift the white middle class and distinguish them from those lazy welfare-mooching colored people. Every "progressive" gift Hillary gives has this poison pill wrapped in the middle: she is talking to the "working" people, and her promise is only for them.

It sounds to me that part of her mission is to repackage Third Way ideas (re:deregulation) to try to make the people "understand" what's for the best. Or to make it look like these Wall Street ideas have a popular mandate. As Woo Me with Science said: Oligarchy Theater.

Barbara Lee/Bernie 2016~~~

[davidpdx]

23. Well put

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. +1

[eridani]

16. Regulations create jobs and jobs give people the discretionary income to spend

--on products and services offered by businesses.

Anti-pollution regulations require hiring and paying people for prevention and cleanup work. People who are hired to take care of those things get paid and spend money on products and services.

[freshwest]

18. Only if government has enough revenue to hire inspectors. The GOP has regulators on the ropes. n/t

[freshwest]

19. It's called listening and collecting data. It's not policy yet. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. H> has been listening & collecting data for DECADES yet doesnt know where she stands on issues? <E has no problem articulating her vision...

And she's been a newly elected U.S. Senator for how long?

[freshwest]

32. Report back with us on how Warren's interviews on the road go during her campaign. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. lol, <E is not even running, yet knows where she stands on issues & can articulate those positions w/o 100's of paid consultants...

like H> who embarrassingly still can't articulate her vision after decades in politics. Have a feeling <E WILL be doing interviews on the campaign trail soon enough if that keeps up. Can't wait!

[freshwest]

34. It's what the people want, not what the candidate wants. Report their words. Like the OP does. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. So all these years, H> hasn't been listening? Or is she just tone deaf? Leaders are supposed to lead, it's as simple as that.

[freshwest]

42. Bullying is for the GOP. Democrats listen. It's still government By, Of and For the People. Focus of

OP is what the people told her, not what she told them.

If you heard her tell them what to do, I guess you'd find fault with her for that as well. People don't like being talked down to.

You aren't making sense to me, and I doubt you would to them, either if you were there. Since when does a crowd of people shut up and beg a candidate, "Lead me! I don't know how to live my own life."

Their views are not my views. It was just a report of what was said at the meeting. As I said, it's collecting data which she may or may not use in formulating new policies in a changing milieu. That's what a wise person does, listen and not yell what to do and think.

The OP reports on an interview that was informal, not a rally who had a bogeyman to attack or 'lead.' No one focuses on an enemy when having meetings. That's for rallies, and even the wisest politicans don't do that.

There is no promise she will ever be a fire brand speaker; she never has been. She is subdued. It does make it harder to get where she's coming from. But her voting record at Ballotpedia does say what she supports ad what she is about.

Whenever she begins making speeches, we'll see what she's learned. It will take a long time to go to all the states to hear the People and not just herself.

EOM.

[tularetom]

56. Um, did I read something wrong?

It wasn't the "people" that made the remark about "unnecessary regulations"

That was the candidate that said that.

So she either believes that regulations are unnecessary, which is sort of a republican/libertarian position

OR

She said that even though she doesn't believe it, which is a textbook example of pandering.

Either way, not so good.

[Zynx]

20. It all depends on what she means by this. There are silly and ponderous regulations on the books.

Not all regulation is automatically good. In fact, in general, I would say the appropriate first approximation with regulations is that you shouldn't make them unless they are necessary.

If she is talking about overturning good and prudent regulations, that's a different story.

[L0oniX]

46. Kinda like ...what "is" is?

[moondust]

21. Regulations protect people and the environment.

From tyrants and predators of all kinds.

So who is it that's always trying to do away with regulations?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Correct!...I'll take Rethuglians for 800...

[The2ndWheel]

37. The human species as a whole

We do not like limits. Natural limits, or man made limits, it doesn't matter. We will always try to get around them. We will always fight them. Always. The only question with man made limits is who's limits they are. If they're limits you agree with, then they're not so bad. If they were made by the other side, then you can't and won't stand for them.

[freshwest]

41. Not always the same people. Many don't want drug laws at all. No regulation. Many don't want to be

told to vaxx their kids. They go to legislatures and demand that regulations that would force them to do so won't regulate. Others don't want government telling them a lot of things they want to do, even when for example MJ is legalized, they don't want any regulations or taxes on the sale of it.People are pushing back against regulations.

Regulations with the aid of government enforce a housing status quo based on maintaing a tax base for the municipality with zoning that benefits the developers and lock low-income people out of housing.

I want a lot of things regulated! But for progressive reasons. But I'm not in Iowa. That is a state that keeps on electing people like Joni Ernst and Steve King. I can hardly believe that anyone would elect them to office.

Yet she is in Iowa and she is trying to get their views. I'll bet some of those people are GOP, but some may be Democrats. I remember Obama going to the Midwest in 2012 to meet people at farmers markets and some looked at him as if he was dirt. This are the voting pool.

I'm sure HRC will be meeting a lot of people and hearing a lot of things we don't like at DU. But that's what we've got to work with, some may have their minds swayed by reasoning. She did listen to them, and said nothing any more interesting than Obama did on the same subject.

She has evolved her views as times have changed. This isn't the same time as when she was First Lady or even Senator. The people want different things than they did then. The country has changed a lot.

I'm in agreement with you that all things to rein in corporations and protect people and the environment must be enforced. But that takes funding. The GOP virtually starved all agencies until there are few people to do the work of regulation and stop bad things happening. Until we vote in a different Congress and a better Senate, and take care of what is going on in state houses, we're fighting a losing battle.

We are on the same page here, but I'm looking at the bigger picture because people are now so hostile to taxation and any kind of regulation it's a very hard atmosphere to work in. We will just see what develops over time, but this is a necessary process even if we don't like the answers the public gives.

[PoliticAverse]

43. Note that Iowa went for Obama in 2008 and 2012. n/t

[freshwest]

44. I know that, good for them. Obama also questioned some regulations. I am really almost knee jerk in

pro-regulation. I don't know if she is talking to Obama voters or Ernst or King ones. Those elected officials do show that not all Iowans are for the same thing as some thoroughly blue states are for such a regulations.

In fact in my 'blue' state, there is a big fight against regulations and taxes on the individual level. It's getting very hard to fund the government for regulation or other purposes.

My expression on the OP is that it is a listening event, not a rally. The way it's conducted and the outcome will be different, too.

No slur against Iowa Dems... They were the first big group for Obam. He never forgot it and was crying as he mentioned that on his very past campaign stop. I saw love in those folks there, but the King and Ernst people, I don't get. But my state has some RWNJs too, so I guess I really should understand it.

What I was trying to say to those using the OP as a springboard to attack HRC, was that she was listening to the people. Some right out of the gate didn't read that was really about listening.

Thanks for the update of this first meetup I've read.

[BreakfastClub]

22. Obama said the same thing... Funny, I don't remember anyone being upset about it. Hmm.

"In a 2011 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, President Obama acknowledged this problem, saying "sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." He called for federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on small companies. Unfortunately, the presidential request has done little to address the problem."

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/230727


Edited to add the link to his Op ed. It's very interesting indeed.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698

[davidpdx]

24. Regulations are what keep people safe

I'll give you an example not in the US, but in South Korea. They let the ferry companies "self-regulate" and 300 people died. That is FUCKED-UP.

RIP Sewol victims 4/16/14

[msanthrope]

25. Tax regs generally don't keep people safe, but our tax code is skewed

to helping the larger corporation, not the small business. Obama ran on this in 2008 and 2012.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Aye, but she also wants to "strengthen families and communities"

Wake me when she actually comes out with a concrete policy idea or position.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. lol, wake up Warren!...H> does believe in the concrete idea of taking huge piles of cash from foreign governments that brutalize women and gays...

a strange way to strengthen families and communities, but a policy idea nonetheless.

[olddots]

47. the chances of any politition knowing about actual small buisness is zero

America is such a big business destroying the chance of democracy that like it or not the people will revolt eventually and it will be "revolting " .

Hillay is a great polititian but the world needs social scientists instead of polititisizers now .I want to say and believe that corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE .

If we want democracy we have to see what has gone wrong and correct it .

[Thinkingabout]

48. Actually I was looking for the reference to her Goldman Sachs speech.

[PoliticAverse]

49. I think the poster had their 'tongue in cheek' with the Goldman Sachs speech comment. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

50. Thought so, guess the title gave a bad lead, huh.

[darkangel218]

51. Ahahahahahahahahha!!!

Are "regulations" keeping her 1% buddies from earning more billions???? Sorry, Mrs Clinton, we apologize.

[discocrisco01]

52. My definition

My definition for excessive regulation is when the compliance cost for a regulation greatly exceeds the social benefit of the regulation. This includes both tangible and intangible costs. I do believe in excessive regulation if the regulation meets the definition that I provided

[MicaelS]

53. I am so sick and tired of the complaints of small business.

Waah, waah, waah.

[darkangel218]

54. No shit!

They want to make an awesome profit, but they pay crap to their employees!