so many of her supporters are filled with vitriol directed at her critics.

You support her. That's fine. I don't. That should be fine too. You aren't a mindless adorer. I'm not a hater, basher filled with fake outrage

The fake outrage is ridiculous by people who don't support her. Can we just hit Hillary on her policies once she has defined them instead of fawning over something taken totally out of context? Can we stop the ageism and sexism, however subtly or implied in some of the Hillary bashing posts?

And after the last 6 plus years of haters with the President, so many see these people redirecting their hate toward Hillary, some of have hated her long before she ever ran for public office.

We have listened to hate for Hillary since Bill took office and it isn't going to get any better this time around. Personally, I hope she gets elected because of the haters, they deserver the misery that bring upon themselves. I also think that she would be a great President and would love to see that barrier broken in our politics, we have elected a black man to the office, now a woman.

If we don't want to be grouped with the hater and bashers, we need craft our criticism constructively and avoid the same rhetoric that we hear from those who are obsessed with their rage against Hillary.

Any Dem is better than those whining sons a bitches and yet you find plenty of time to attack our front-runner.

That's a crock of shit.

It is still propagating a false right wing meme.

This is like the other poorly thought out idea that we are going to solve our job crisis with "better training". These issues are far deeper and structural and if we are ever going to get them fixed we need to stop propagating convenient myths.

I do understand that those issues are difficult to explain to our (generally) ignorant public, but introducing and reinforcing myths, and even worse when candidates BELIEVE them is not going to meet the challenges of our time.

The rules and regulations are not equal for small businesses which is exactly who Hillary is talking to.

they don't have the manpower to keep up with all the bullshit. It is actually a way for larger businesses to take advantage.

Her statements are not a big deal at all and anyone bitching about it is a ponyboy or worse.

a typical retail or manufacturing small business.

A typical small business only deals with the Federal government via payroll taxes. That isn't hard, nor are the regulations particularly burdensome. You have to file forms and mail checks. At regular, defined intervals that you know of long in advance.

Most of what people call "burdensome" regulations are state and local. Such as zoning, environmental impact statements, parking requirements, and so on.

talk about making things better for small business owners,that's politics 101.

Small businesses are being strangled by the banks and steamrollered by the likes of Amazon.

Nibbling around the edges with paperwork reduction is not going to help. The real problem is the 1% and their stranglehold on the money supply in this country. The real problem is that the Treasury lets the banks print money which the banks use to play currency arbitrage games with instead of investing. The real problem is that corporations use 50%+ of their profits in stock buybacks instead of investing. The ones that actually do invest, like Amazon, basically "Borg" any small business that is making money by making "offers they can't refuse".

You want the focus of this fight to be about some microscopic "she said this word" nonsense. The real fight is the 1% vs the 99%, and Hillary is still spouting the discredited, "big government is nothing but an impediment" party line. The same party line as the GOP.

In some sense we agree. This one sentence is meaningless. But the context you bring up puts Hillary's outdated message in the spotlight; and it doesn't look pretty.

Here it is.

blame the woes of small business exclusively on government regulation is to discount other greater pressures and positions regulation as the scapegoat while ignoring the bigger problems.

Retail Stranglers who appreciate Clintons, Bushs, and Jackson Stephens.

Thank you!

Hillary...that is all

Is it's also a individual state and county thing. Federally we can make it easier for small businesses to be solvent, and have local regulations and taxations bung it up.

I agree. It was the local bullshit regs and taxes that interfered with my ability to earn a living. The federal regulation was to have a tax ID number, and to remit payroll taxes for my employees. I had more federal tax breaks than I could use, and paid no federal taxes except payroll taxes.
Locally, my property taxes tripled in 5 years as we spent every dime we made improving the property. Repressive taxes, fees and regulations are local, and, in my area, all local elected officials are Republican.

Then maybe they should stop funneling money to the thieving bank$ter/donors and put it in the pockets of the people who do the work and create the jobs.

Applause to Obama and HRC for their stance.

Also the federal definition of a "small business" in Reply 25.

Absolutely every person from either party has the same rhetoric "regulation bad...regulation hurt business!"

You will never hear any of them talk about the burdensome regulations on people. Like that regulation that rescinds my 4th amendment rights 100 mile from the coast, or those rules that make it absurdly difficult to travel freely within my own borders, or that regulation that requires me to work until I'm at least 65, or those rules that make my income more taxable than Wells Fargo's.

Just once I would like to hear one person running for office talk about how they want to help actual real people, not buinessiness and the made-up John and Jane Doe that they "met on the campaign trail..."

Regulations that make it more difficult to vote, regulations that make it near-impossible to immigrate legally. We could do a whole thread listing onerous regulations that inhibit and repress individuals.

You don't use the leash you use on your toy poodle, to restrain your tiger.
Why can't any politician use a simple clarification?

Because she is employing a very old American political strategy, say things which can mean several things depending on who hears them.
To would be entrepreneurs: I'll help you
To existing small businesses: I'll protect you
To big business: I'll free you
To economists: More potential for growth
To small government advocates: Less control from above
The statement is too vague to be of real use. It can be expanded upon or retreated from with ease. It is just a political tool.

Judged by itself, an attempt to appeal to a wider range of voters is not a bad thing. Seen in the context of where that has taken the United States over the last 40 some odd years. For a great deal of the politically aware, the vagueness is unsatisfactory.

nt.

Unlike the republicans, who want to open the flood gates of deregulation and have a rapacious free-for-all, at least people on our side are trying to be reasonable, thoughtful and fair about regulation. The world is never just as simple as black and white.

Also, small minds love to take things out of context.

Apparently, somewhere in the manual, it says, "Whenever anyone challenges Hillary on anything, link Obama to it somehow."

Noticed this on a thread yesterday. And OP with no links said Hillary had entered into a very undesirable agreement with Japan. Within minutes three or four posts were on the thread saying either that Obama ordered it or Obama approved it. As it turned out, the sole source for this info was one man. But, Obama was under the bus before anyone even checked for link.

Small business are paying a huge tax burden so the big businesses can get 10 digit tax refunds.

or even a chain with inside the city stores, like Tru Value Hardware.

Besides, according to the truly small business owners on this thread, it's state and local laws that are their problem, not federal.

But simplifying a few forms is easier than addressing larger issues.

Besides, regulations got into place for a reason, often for the benefit of the general public. Food safety, food labeling. What they gain, the rest of us are likely to lose.

Whoever came up with that insane policy deserves a spot at the Table of Dunces.

probably have very lovely tables now, thank you very much.

Every day is a new day to spin the Wheel of Outrage!



Sid

So small that it was just me. I averaged about $25,000 per year in profits. I was the programmer, the printer, the software duplicator, the janitor and the shipping department. It was a shareware company, so people could use the program freely, but were asked to pay a small amount to become a registered user. My software licence, however, required businesses and government agencies to pay for a registered licence. Just one, for the entire company or organization.

One of my programs was very useful and was widely used by many people. Just looking at downloads, it was in millions of computers. So, one day, I got a letter from a federal agency that wanted to pay the license fee. $15 for unlimited users. Same fee for anyone who registered the program.

Trouble was, they couldn't pay me unless I became an official vendor with the GAO. A few days later, I got a box from the GAO, with reams of forms to fill out to become an official vendor so I could get paid my $15. Guess what happened next: I changed my software licence, making it illegal for government agencies to use the software at all, since they could not pay me for it. I sent that letter to the GAO and to the agency that wanted to become a registered user.

Bottom line is that it would have been impossible for me to provide all the information demanded to become a vendor. Impossible.

In the end, the guy with that agency that wanted to register my $15 shareware program called me on the phone and asked if he could just send me a check for $15 to register the program and if his department could continue using the program. I said, "Sure." and wrote a separate licence agreement for that agency and re-labeled the program's interface restricting its use to that agency.

The GAO? They kept sending me more and more forms to fill out. They never responded to my letters explaining that I had no interest whatever in becoming an official vendor.

It was funny, but it's also typical of how government agencies deal with small and ultra-small businesses. They make it impossible to do business with the government if you are small.

to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.