General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

71. jim himes. formerly VP at Goldman Sachs. introduced legislation

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 05:32 PM

Jun 2015

to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank for the benefit of constituents in his home town of Greenwich, hedge fund capitol of the world. represents the district with the most income disparity in the country, and does entry for his wealthy constituents and little for the poor.

You mean that Jim Himes?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton Addressed TPP in Iowa Event [View all] MineralMan Jun 2015 OP

So, she didn't actually address any of the specific issues like ISDS, Fast Tracking, secrecy, leveymg Jun 2015 #1

Rep Jim Hines (D-CT) addresses some concerns here... JaneyVee Jun 2015 #4

Is Rep. Himes Hillary's official spokesman on this issue? leveymg Jun 2015 #6

Sorry, I thought you cared about the issues and... JaneyVee Jun 2015 #8

I care enought to do my own reading on issues, and haven't tried to divert this thread. leveymg Jun 2015 #12

So what do you think about Rep Hines take on it? JaneyVee Jun 2015 #15

He needs a better site. It is neither searchable nor indexed - just a long line of Q&A which leveymg Jun 2015 #17

LOL. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #80

lol at Hillary fans using a former vp of goldman sachs as a go to guy for answers cali Jun 2015 #82

jim himes. formerly VP at Goldman Sachs. introduced legislation cali Jun 2015 #71

Classic revolving door. He's probably fishing for a spot at Treasury under the next Admin. leveymg Jun 2015 #79

pathetic, isn't it? this guy is being touted on DU as someone to go to on the TPP cali Jun 2015 #81

Hey Janey, I want to hear your take on cali's take on Hines in post #71. Or did the ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #88

I don't care what the banksters want and I sure as hell don't listen to them on the TPP cali Jun 2015 #83

Here is what Himes sent out to his constituents, of which I am one. When I wrote him Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #57

He is my congressman, and he will not tell me what is inaccurate in the list of objections Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #54

She said what I posted that she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #19

You know, she really didn't address TPP, she touched on the subject. leveymg Jun 2015 #36

Addressed it, mentioned it, brought it up. MineralMan Jun 2015 #38

ok. I guess we can all use a break from this stuff. leveymg Jun 2015 #43

" Addressed it, mentioned it, brought it up" -- danced around it. But didn't take a stand corkhead Jun 2015 #55

What she said was wishy-washy politispeak. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #89

Whatever you say. I just reported what she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #90

Stop being so defensive. I wasn't criticizing your comment/transcription. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #91

There's Warren again, failing to aknowledge the ISDS has been in place for decades, and has not Hoyt Jun 2015 #34

You might need to update your defense in light of the US changing it's meat labeling laws jeff47 Jun 2015 #44

Non State-to-State ISDS is new. What's new about this is that individual companies leveymg Jun 2015 #63

Been in some 2500 trade agreements since 1959. Check your beliefs., to ensure they Hoyt Jun 2015 #64

The existing ISDS goes through state-to-state mechanisms, as the US Trade Representative leveymg Jun 2015 #66

Thank you, ISDS is not new, and corporations have sued under it for decades. Hoyt Jun 2015 #67

Non state-to-state ISDS is new. That's the difference with the TPP - the new form allows leveymg Jun 2015 #68

Here's a NYT article that lays it out based upon a Wikileaks copy of the January draft TPP leveymg Jun 2015 #69

So, I guess ISDS suits BY CORPORATIONS against the USA, Canada or Mexico in the 1990s under NAFTA Hoyt Jun 2015 #70

If you state the venue of the cases, we can look that up. leveymg Jun 2015 #72

There is not a darn bit of difference. Go here and pick some cases www.italaw.com/ Hoyt Jun 2015 #74

International law and treaties is all about lots of little differences. NAFTA is a treaty between leveymg Jun 2015 #76

Exactly what is in TPP. So it is not new. Hoyt Jun 2015 #77

The NAFTA Ch 11 cases are filed between the states with companies as "Investor of another party" leveymg Jun 2015 #75

Same thing in TPP, same rules, same way of selecting arbiters, etc. Not new in TPP. Hoyt Jun 2015 #78

Here's an example of how the current state-to-state system in NAFTA requires gov't leveymg Jun 2015 #85

ISDS UNDER NAFTA, Same as under proposed TPP. Hoyt Jun 2015 #92

So does she support or oppose the TPA fast track legislation? Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #2

It doesn't matter. She has no vote leftofcool Jun 2015 #7

No I won't slam her if she opposes it Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #9

I think it matters. Hillary is the presumptive nominee and TPA will be a great benefit tritsofme Jun 2015 #11

YEs it matters a great deal. This is a specific example of the kind of decisions rurallib Jun 2015 #13

It absolutely matters. She's running for President and would get to use this bill if neverforget Jun 2015 #16

And, of course, so would a Republican President Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #87

And at last we have the old Ann Romney "you people" slam tularetom Jun 2015 #37

It certainly doesn't matter to those that can overlook her selling the lies for IWar rhett o rick Jun 2015 #60

It matters a fuckton. Orsino Jun 2015 #94

She said only what I posted about. MineralMan Jun 2015 #20

We should not have to be mind readers Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #25

I can't help you with that. I've never met her. MineralMan Jun 2015 #26

I don't need your help, I need her help Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #31

DU rec...nt SidDithers Jun 2015 #3

K&R leftofcool Jun 2015 #5

why is it that EVERYONE can discuss specific points on this bigtree Jun 2015 #10

I'm sure she could. It's a campaign speech, and she talked about a long MineralMan Jun 2015 #21

she speaks about it like she's detqached from the issues everyone else is discussing bigtree Jun 2015 #27

I can't help you there. I posted a paraphrase of MineralMan Jun 2015 #29

as a candidate, she has absolutely nothing to gain from geek tragedy Jun 2015 #93

hmmm. cali Jun 2015 #14

I neither praised her nor criticized her in this OP. MineralMan Jun 2015 #22

She doesn't need to address TPP at all. She already has. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #18

Could be. I don't know. She spoke in Iowa at a campaign MineralMan Jun 2015 #23

Understood. Mine was a general comment, directed at pretty much everyone. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #24

Well, one poster in this thread seems to think that my OP MineralMan Jun 2015 #28

You'd think with that history she'd actually take a position on it in her campaign. jeff47 Jun 2015 #41

Here's how it seems to me: if I profess unflinching support for something both as a public official cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #50

Stances are for the little people. Important people have optics. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2015 #51

Truer words were never posted... n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #53

Once again she said a bunch of nothing. askew Jun 2015 #30

So original basically she said nothing other than mentioning the TPP and some trade agreements Autumn Jun 2015 #32

I don't like the after the fact thinking either mvd Jun 2015 #62

Your subject line is incorrect Doctor_J Jun 2015 #33

OK. Whatever. I posted a paraphrase of what she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #35

So... She didn't really address it, she just name dropped while serving up platitudes. Exilednight Jun 2015 #39

Yes, yes. So, I shouldn't have posted anything about it? MineralMan Jun 2015 #42

A truthful title: Hillary mentions TPP in stump speech, but offers no stance. Exilednight Jun 2015 #47

FFS! MineralMan Jun 2015 #48

No objection from me. Exilednight Jun 2015 #49

So to summarize: jeff47 Jun 2015 #40

OK. I didn't summarize. I paraphrased. MineralMan Jun 2015 #45

I didn't say you did not summarize/paraphrase. jeff47 Jun 2015 #46

I don't think she believes the trade deal is going to pass. nt sufrommich Jun 2015 #52

When you leave so much to chance on how you're perceived, when less than candid Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #56

Yesterday and this morning there has been lots of remarks about Hillary not talking about TPP, this Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #58

Clear and concise frylock Jun 2015 #59

You forgot the :sarcasm: tag. Exilednight Jun 2015 #86

MM, thanks. I hope there will be a transcript released. n/t freshwest Jun 2015 #61

Called it! joshcryer Jun 2015 #65

Every part of the Democratic Party coalition is against it except for big banks and corporations Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #73

If I were in Congress, I would only vote for a trade deal after a lot of social JDPriestly Jun 2015 #84