Wall Street Dem donors: We'll back Trump if you nominate Warren.

[crazytown]

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2019, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

CNBC, September 26, 2007
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html

Wall Street Democratic donors warn the party: We’ll sit out, or back Trump, if you nominate Elizabeth Warren

I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.

“You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump,’” said a senior private equity executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders. The executive said this Wednesday, a day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

During the campaign, Warren has put out multiple plans intended to curb the influence of Wall Street, including a wealth tax. In July, she released a proposal that would make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy. Trump, meanwhile, has given wealthy business leaders a helping hand with a major corporate tax cut and by eliminating regulations.

(snip) Some big bank executives and hedge fund managers have been stunned by Warren’s ascent, and they are primed to resist her.

“They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. This person said Warren’s policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama, who signed the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

EDIT: Warren Replies

Link to tweet

[BigMin28]

1. Can we

Find out who these donors are?

[Perseus]

52. They want "more of the same"

So guess who they want the nominee to be? Amazing how little this people care about the country, anyone who believes these are patriots is not listening, not paying attention. These people would sell their kids for money.

[LincolnRossiter]

76. Why? You going to punish them? If they're as rich as the story implies they won't care about our

outrage. They kind of hold the cards in this little exchange unless you’re suggesting the government punish them for giving (or not giving) their money to the candidates of their choice.

It’s not a crime to be selfish, petty, or short-sighted.

[guillaumeb]

2. So these "Democratic" donors

want to have an effective veto power over the millions of Democratic voters?

[vsrazdem]

40. Yes, so I guess they are saying that if anyone else gets it, things will stay the same? Go Liz!

[Locrian]

53. EXACTLY

makes it easy for me to know who to support

[CountAllVotes]

87. These are supposedly Democrats but ...

They wear the clothes of pukes, they smell like pukes and they hide under the guise of Don The Con, their hero in life.

Too bad they cannot see Don The Con for what he is, a big FAT con-man that doesn't give two hoots in hell about the American people.

What a shameful and pathetic orange man he is.

The pukes have been stealing from the middle-class ever since 911 to pad their coffers for the inevitable crash(s)! Look abt. below because nothing will able to slow this snow ball once it gets rolling.

SHAME ON ALL OF THESE PIGS & THEIR DISGRACEFUL SPAWN!

[guillaumeb]

107. Undeniable.

And these 1% sociopaths want to frame what is possible, and what can be allowed to happen.

[Funtatlaguy]

3. Let them. Warren would wear that as a badge of honor.

[LonePirate]

4. My support for Warren grows stronger with articles like this one.

[DownriverDem]

47. Okay

Can she win the Electoral College which is state by state? Beating trump is all that matters. We're stuck for now with the Electoral College.

[qazplm135]

80. What state is Wall Street again?

Did I miss where they get an EC vote?

[virgogal]

5. Anonymous garbage.

[NurseJackie]

82. Yep.

[KayF]

104. that's a great point

no reason for them to print this anonymously. Garbage story.

[BlueWI]

110. +1000

Say it in the sunshine or shut it down.

[ancianita]

6. Good. It's apparent how stupid Wall Street is. Warren would be neutralized as VP,

since she'd SIT as president of the Senate, NOT pass anti-Wall Street legislation.

Let them lose their money on their favorite crook.

They know that if she wins they'd better clean up their shady side.

[BeyondGeography]

7. And the horse they rode in on

Yeah, these are the kind of “Democrats” we need to coddle.

[calguy]

8. Warren has prposed so many restrictions and penalties

for Wall Street investors I feel that should she get elected you would see a massive stock market crash.
I'm a liberal and I also trade the markets full time.
If you want to bring about the changes Warren wants, you have to do it gradually and not in one fell swoop. I understand her positions as a campaign issue. In reality, if all her proposals were put into law, confidence in the markets would collapse.
At the present time I'm not too worried about it because I don't think she'll be the nominee.

[maxsolomon]

13. how exactly would she impose these changes?

through executive order?

the senate is where bold policy goes to die.

[FloridaBlues]

27. Doesn't any of these plans have to go through congress?

[maxsolomon]

30. yep.

I remember the interminable ACA process. the Senate is where the Public Option died a slow, torturous death.

[LincolnRossiter]

91. The executive can do a lot to regulate various industries without congressional action.

NT.

[maxsolomon]

93. would she be able to implement her full agenda that way?

no. she'd need to legislate. she can't change tax law through executive order.

[LincolnRossiter]

94. I don't think the question was whether she could do her "full agenda." It's whether she could do

enough to spook Wall Street. The answer is yes.

[maxsolomon]

95. any Dem is going to spook Wall St.

they're a bunch of pansies.

[LincolnRossiter]

96. Some are spookier than others.

Wall Street understands that some Dems want to reform it. They fear that others want to tear it down brick by brick.

[maxsolomon]

97. That is an irrational fear.

I'm sick of their emotionalism.

[LincolnRossiter]

98. Why don't you pick up a phone, get a director at Goldman on the line, and tell him that?

I'm sure that'll solve the problem.

[maxsolomon]

99. LOL, great idea. I'll send him a Doodle for a Gotomeeting.

Not sure why you're snarking at me, and not at the Wall St. pansies who think Warren is going to destroy Capitalism through sheer force of will.

She can't. The Federal Gubmint exists to protect wealth.

[LincolnRossiter]

100. My point was it's a little high-handed to tell others what they should and shouldn't fear.

Now if you want to explain to them why they shouldn't fear it that's another matter. But "chillax bro, you're being irrational" probably wouldn't persuade them.

[BlueMississippi]

15. People holding pitchforks and torches never use logic nt

[LincolnRossiter]

92. I'm with you. I understand wanting a more equitable system and some necessary regulations on the

financial sector, but there are those who act as though they hate the wealthy for being wealthy. Newsflash, people are selfish by nature. That's why we need laws and taxes to temper certain human proclivities. But it doesn't require you to hate the wealthy.

[athena]

17. I rather believe the opposite.

The massive stock market crash will be caused by Trump, long before the 2020 election.

Regulations don't cause market crashes; they are designed to prevent them.

I, for one, care much more about ensuring equal opportunity, which is the way to achieve long-term growth, than about making sure that those who spend their time trading stocks on Wall Street make a good income in the short term.

[floppyboo]

39. Calguy - do you think the 99%% cares? What's a stock market crash to them?

The middle class is destroyed. Most don't have equity.
I also have a financial background. I understand that America's wealth (First World Wealth in general) is tied up in the market/shares in companies, and that apparent good living is promisory notes on that paper wealth turning into 'gold' - whatever that looks like after this bubble gets burst.
I understand that you need someone to keep the taxes on the super wealthy down and keep the loop holes in place so you can leak all that virtual profit into locked communities.
What was the point of all that hoarding? To what end? Are your grandchildren's friends happy? Do you care?

[SoCalNative]

60. I'm guessing a good deal of those 99%

may have a 401k. And if they don't understand what the stock market has to do with them and retirement savings, then they deserve what they get.

[BlueWI]

109. About 32% have a 401K.

And as a successful investor herself, I don't think the risk of a loss of value is unfamiliar to Elizabeth Warren.

[floppyboo]

118. The teacher's retirement fund already got 'what they deserved' in 2008.

I know people that lost their retirement.
Personally, I took all my investments and moved them to renewable resources through a local credit union advisor.
It's all possible, but the message is being killed.
To say they get what they deserve is really not going to help any moving forward.
Sounds like a very bad schooling.

[vsrazdem]

41. I think she will, and it's not like we haven't seen a massive stock market crash in the past. If

that hapens so be it, but it's going to happen sooner or later regardless if what ecomonists are saying is true and we are hedading for a recession.

[AJT]

55. I'm 61 and a crash in the market would ruin me and many professionals

around my age. So, yes the stock market matters.

[vsrazdem]

58. I understand it matters, but it is not going to be caused by electing Liz. The market has been

riding a false high for quite a while and is going to have to correct itself sooner or later, and by all economist predictions, we are heading for a recession, no matter who the president is in 2020.

[AJT]

59. I agree.

[CountAllVotes]

62. +1

Agree.

It is beyond overheated.

When the fed is cutting rates, the saver is screwed again.

Can they just go ahead and hurt fixed-income people more already?

[CountAllVotes]

88. I learned all about The Casino before 2008

A friend lost it all with Lehman Brothers. She could only write off a small amount of her losses.

She has just inherited over $800,000.00 in 2005 and lost a huge chunk of it in the crash of 2008.

She could not even LOOK at the statements they sent her telling her how much she lost.

She had nothing her whole life but her millionaire parents did nothing to help her.

In the end it was Merrill-Lynch that was handling her money and she lost a load! She was in her early 60s at the time and had no way to recoup her massive losses in The Casino as she was in poor health and unable to work any longer at the age of 65 years.

Said woman was confused after having nothing her entire life to having everything she wanted, including lots of booze.

Today, some 12 years after the inheritance she received, I recently found that she has died as an alcoholic without a whole lot of anything left.

She was just ONE of countless others that you will NEVER hear about.

At her age with all of the medical problems she had, the last place she should have ever had her inheritance was in The Wall Street Casino. They nailed her good, real good, and I am certain this this awful stress contributed to the ultimate reason for untimely death at the age of a young 73.

This friend is a true story with a very sad ending.

How many will toss in the towel, go to Edward Jones (or some other half-baked) financial planning place only to get ripped off again and again just as the plan proceeds.

& recommend !!

[ooky]

105. Might be time to get out of the stock market then, if that's an option.

[Voltaire2]

119. If you are 61 and that exposed to a market crash

you have seriously mismanaged your portfolio.

The market is going to crash. It always does.

[Newest Reality]

9. To be polite,

They can go fuck themselves relentlessly and sit on the bull's horns for lunch. Turncoats for their bottom line?

They already have too much power and influence as a tentacle of the MIC. They can knock off the strong arm tactics and overt attempts to influence our primary.

Waving a BIG middle finger. These clowns are a part of what really makes this Oligarchy vs. Democracy and that's a source of many of our biggest problems today.

Backing Trump gives just gives them the same, awful stink we are smelling now. Sure.

[wysimdnwyg]

10. "Warren's policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama"

These are Democrats? Uh huh, sure they are. And Trump is 239lbs.

[KPN]

19. THIS

[Midnight Writer]

29. Dodd-Frank and other Obama policies stabilized our markets and banking industries.

These American oligarchs already have riches beyond most people's imaginations, but they still want more, more, more...

[Salviati]

34. People who think that Democrats are bad for the economy/stock market just want an excuse...

... to let their baser instincts rule.

Their opinions clearly have no basis in fact.



https://fortune.com/2019/06/03/stock-market-trump-obama-sp-500/

[wysimdnwyg]

48. And that's to say nothing about the three Presidents prior

If you go back to 1989, you'll clearly see the economy does much better under Democratic leadership. Every Republican President since H.W. has seen the economy tank, while both Democratic Presidents have presided over massive, sustained economic expansions. The problem these oligarchs have with Warren is that she wants to double down on the Democratic policies that support those at the bottom and middle of the economic spectrum instead of pushing all of the benefits to them. $1B, $10B, even $100B isn't enough for them.

Just imagine... I make a pretty nice living, but $1M would be life changing for me. Imagine what it could do for someone on the lower end. Someone like Jeff Bezos could do that for 100,000 families all by himself and still have billions left over (and that's AFTER losing half of it in his divorce).

[IronLionZion]

64. Obama was so bad he had the longest bull market in history

Historically stocks do better when Democrats are in charge

[Blue_true]

72. Those people are all about money, even as they have plenty. nt

[DBoon]

11. Time for a steep wealth tax

Billionaires should not be able to threaten a democratic election like this.

The fact they think they can call the shots means they believe their wealth allows them to act like oligarchs.

They need to be taken down a notch and need to learn that human voters call the shots, not billionaires

No group of people should have so much money that they can threaten a democratically elected candidate like this.

[TheRealNorth]

12. Fuck Wall Street

I am not 100% on board with a wealth tax (I prefer a higher graduated tax on investment income), but part of the problem post-great recession is that i think the dems went too easy on them and the wall street fat cats turned around and shit on us in 2010 and 2012 (and since).

The only reason they even care about the Democrats now is because they know Trump will lose in a free and fair election and they want to hedge their bets.

It's time to break Wall Street's grip on our Democracy.

[YOHABLO]

14. Oh hogwash ! Where did CNBC get their info? Gee, I wonder which side they're on.

And yeah, Wall Street, we're coming after you. And filthy rich folks, we're going to raise your taxes.

[dawg day]

22. It's like those "swing voters" that the NY Times keep finding who always say,

"I guess I'll vote for Trump."

(And it turns out they're always interviewed, and have always supported Trump. They "swing" from supporting Trump to supporting Trump.)

[brewens]

16. I would suggest those people get the check books out and donate to Trump today!

[dawg day]

18. Oh, well. If they'd vote for Trump for any reason at all, they're welcome to it

... and may they burn in shame, but they won't.

We can't let bankers and hedge fund operators determine who gets to be nominated. There's another party for that.

[vsrazdem]

42. And don't call yourselves Democratic Donors, call it like it is, money grubbing corporations.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. The love of money is the root of all evil.

Someone supposedly said that long ago.

Really tired of money often having more power than democracy in this country, regardless.

[catrose]

21. "It would be like shutting down their industry"

Why, yes. That's the point. We remember "too big to fail" in 2008. And we remember how Iceland dealt with their banking fungus.

[Farmer-Rick]

23. Little whiney pissy pants

It's what the filthy rich always say. If you don't.keep letting me abuse your citizenry with our capitalist cons, we'll take the wealth we conned and manipulated out of your nation and go somewhere else, or pay someone else, or benefit someone else.

Well the biggest majority of filthy scum sucking rich are supporting the orange annus and his Slovenian sex worker anyway. How much more money do you think they need? Hell, they have the richest man in the world on their side that tiny little man in Moscow.

So you little prissy pants bankers shoveling more Trump's way ain't going to make an iota of difference. And if you like Trump shitting on everything that is good about this nation, go ahead feed your monster.

But in the end you get a dictator or king but Not a democracy. Capitalism is eating our democracy.

[KPN]

24. One word: Extortion.

So they'd burn down the country if we have a nominee who can't be bought. Right. Got it.

[mtngirl47]

25. Screw them.

They will back someone who has committed treason for a few dollars.

Screw them.

[Blue_true]

74. Exactly. nt

[Doremus]

26. Ok, so do we need anymore proof that there are Dems who support monied interests

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2019, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

over people?

Can we please stop pretending they don't exist?

Can we please start weeding them out and moving left again?

[LAS14]

28. Sounds like they're afraid she might be effective in carrying out her plans! nt

[jcgoldie]

31. As Trump would say "A lot of people are saying...."

ie "here comes some complete bullshit."

[sueunderh]

32. Makes me want to vote for Warren more!

Amoral aholes. Of course they will not support Trump in public, but will instead hide behind dark money.

[gopiscrap]

61. welcome to DU

[TwilightZone]

33. Eh, not buying it.

"CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren"

"Several" and "widespread" are not equivalent terms. I think CNBC talked to a handful of Dems, if even that many, and is extrapolating it to some kind of trend.

[saidsimplesimon]

35. Sounds like a "made for endorsement" of Ms. Warren

A link to the "young turks" reporting on "the markets"; "a declining share of money managers expect (IT) will be reelected."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fears-of-a-warren-presidency-on-rise-among-stock-market-investors-survey-shows-2019-09-25?mod=mw_theo_homepage

Survey of investors shows growing anxiety over Elizabeth Warren’s rise in presidential poll
Published: Sept 26, 2019 7:03 a.m. ET

39% of respondents see Warren getting the nod, up from 7% in June

As Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers rise, so does anxiety on Wall Street.

That’s a according to a survey of U.S. institutional equity investors published Tuesday by RBC Capital Markets, which showed a declining share of money managers expect President Donald Trump to win reelection next year. A rising expect the Democratic nomination to go to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

[PatrickforO]

36. Fuck them. That's WHY we need to nominate Warren.

Let them threaten.

[pangaia]

37. tell you all you need to know about these fuckers....

and they ain't democrats.. they are self-interested, greedy, un-American slime..

[Mr.Bill]

38. Hopefully, any Democrat

that gets elected President will lead the charge to rid our election system of their filthy money. That's what they fear.

[dawg]

43. Go piss up a rope, Wall Street ...

you were always going to back him anyway.

[WinstonSmith4740]

44. Really?

So extortion is the route they've decided on. Interesting. What I think they might be missing is that even though we are uncomfortably close to it, it still isn't "One dollar, one vote". I think if they throw money at Trump, they might as well set it on fire. People know who he is, and they're tired of it. They can run all the pretty ads they want, but it won't change an awful lot of people's reality.

We'll never make a dent in his brain-dead mouth-breathers...they're too far gone. But that 5-6% that wanted a change and thought they'd give him a shot are gone for good. And there's still too much "common memory" of the last time banking institutions were allowed to run roughshod over our economic system with no oversight.

[TryLogic]

45. This information needs to go to the people, everyone, not the DNC insiders.

No more corruption, in either party.

[theaocp]

46. Oddly enough, I'm noticing a decided LACK of posts telling her

to GTFM as I've seen others tell other candidates. Maybe they can woo these pricks. Fuck them.

[ananda]

49. So what?

We don't need you, assholes!

[Perseus]

50. Ah, the patriotism from Wall St. how inspiring

Unreal...What they don't seem to understand is that even they, those with the money, will go down if there were to be a 2nd term for the creature. I don't understand how people in those positions don't know about the history of regimes such as the one the creature dreams of. In those regimes even those who help the dictator get in power are eventually taken down, they are disposed of all their possessions and thrown out to fry, they suddenly see the need to flee the country while wondering what happened.

[yaesu]

51. they will be supporting tRump regardless, pfffft. nt

[splunge63]

54. Eff them*

[Raven123]

56. See if they feel the same way next month

[DrFunkenstein]

57. We Need Those Millions of Wall Street Executive Votes

This is no time for reform. We need every vote. Especially those who would re-elect the worst President in US history just so they could maintain an obscene level of wealth.

Oh, wait. It's only a handful of people in a state that is never going to turn red.

As Jim Morrison said, "They've got the guns, but we've got the numbers."

Screw 'em.

[applegrove]

63. Elizabeth Warren:

Link to tweet

[BeyondGeography]

68. Great response by EW

Thanks for posting.

[applegrove]

69. I see it is in the OP too. You can never repeat Waŕren too much. N/T

[applegrove]

66. Paul Krugman:

Link to tweet

[IronLionZion]

67. I'll buy when those assholes are selling

Stocks are expensive now. Sure the markets will take a dive in reaction to a liberal winning the election, but then she'll implement good structural reforms to strengthen all aspects of our economy to help normal people who are the ones who drive our consumer-based economy. Stocks will then rise up again.

Even the health care stocks will do well. Whatever she ends up getting us for health care reform will give access to more people, which will increase consumption for health care supplies, devices, technology, drugs, etc. More patients will use our health care system if Medicare is paying for it, and there will be more health care jobs created.

[Blue_true]

70. Fuck them. If we nominate Senator Warren, we must gladly dig deeper into our pockets.

It is time that Wall Street excesses be ended and we get back to capitalism that lifts up broad classes of people (and despite critics, it has done that in the past).

[Ace Rothstein]

71. All the more reason to vote for her.

I think I'm about ready to jump on the Warren bandwagon.

[sheshe2]

73. Oh my gosh!

Are they gonna hold their breath until they turn blue?

[Hortensis]

75. Three words for them: Grassroots funding, Losers!

Some pulled this same thing in 2016. They threatened to withdraw support for Hillary if Warren was her running mate. Of course the media made this Wall Street subset of white men who decamped to Trump sound like more than they were.

[FM123]

77. What she said:

I'm not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don't get to buy this process.

[kurtcagle]

78. Trolling and Recessions

I'm not seeing names named in the article, only vague blanket allegations.

The stock market has about a 70% chance of crashing between now and summer 2020, and a 85% chance by election day 2020. I'd say a Lehman Brothers moment or something similar (watch Deutsch Bank very closely) will trigger it. It won't really matter who the Democratic nominee will be.

[mike_c]

79. They have no scruples but greed.

[BlueMTexpat]

81. Seeing an article such as this

makes my support for Warren even more solid!

These are NOT Democrats. They are people who want to control Congress and the Executive in their favor, i.e., lobbyists. The mere fact that they say that they would support Trump - or ANY Republican - over Warren outs them.

For shame ... and shame on ANY Dem who seeks their imprimatur!

[aikoaiko]

83. Biden or Busters?

[NYMinute]

84. They will pay and support whoever benefits them

It is human nature .... and we should just let it be.

[crazytown]

113. Like IG Farben

in another era.

[BeckyDem]

85. Their priorities on display.

[NCLefty]

86. Sure, they suck. But their money matters. :/

This could hurt her if she runs out of money. Otherwise, the very concept of it helps her, I think. It's totally on-brand, in the way we like.

[Tiggeroshii]

102. The way things are going with the possibility of a recession

They are more likely to run out of the money before her.

[betsuni]

89. Wall Street boogieman.

Only applied to Democrats. One would think all of the bad scary Wall Street and lobbyists and fundraisers and donors were Democrats. So stupid.

[eppur_se_muova]

90. Darn. She'll have to settle for an appointment as Secretary of the Treasury.

That'll show her.

[Tiggeroshii]

101. Thats awfully transparent of them.

And I say good riddance.

[CrispyQ]

103. They would rather vote for someone who might take the entire economy down,

than vote for someone who will make them share the wealth. JFC, what a bunch of greedy fucks.

[CountAllVotes]

106. +1,000+++++

n/t

[progressoid]

108. Biden Bros.

[Hortensis]

111. This still here? RW Wall Street is the Republicans' anyway.

These are the better paid working white male Democrats-sometimes, and who doesn't believe they voted for Trump last time?

Who they are NOT are the 181 top CEOs of The Business Roundtable, representing the nation's chief executives, who have redefined the purpose of a corporation. From their 2-page statement rejecting the ruinous laissez-faire greed with its focus on short-term shareholder profits.

This signals a sea change.

“If companies fail to recognize that the success of our system is dependent on inclusive long-term growth, many will raise legitimate questions about the role of large employers in our society,” the statement said. “It has become clear that the [old language] on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable.”

Business Roundtable’s new commitment for corporations includes “delivering value to our customers,” “investing in our employees,” “dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers,” “supporting the communities in which we work,” and “generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate.”

[McCamy Taylor]

114. Fuck Wall Street. They will support the GOP.

They do not get a seat at the Democratic table.

[milestogo]

115. Wall Street Dems you aren't really Dems so go fuck yourselves please.

[not_the_one]

117. bottom line, my country is more important than your paycheck

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2019, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

There were tons of so-called "liberal" boomers who protested during the 60's, 70's, who finally made it, have a good income, and good investments, and have been voting republican for years BECAUSE they are now financially secure. They were obviously lino's (I just made that up, like dino and rino... )

Whether you make another dollar or not, is not my concern. I am concerned about the continuation of the American experiment, not the fattening of your wallet.

About 12 or 13 years ago I gave up relations with my best friend. We both worked in different aspects of higher education. He didn't like Bush, but he knew the student loan industry was going to change if Obama was elected. He felt he would lose his job if Obama was elected. His job was more important than the country. So he voted for Bush. That was a compromise I was not willing to accept, and we parted ways.

If it all comes crashing down due to your greed, rest assured, you WILL come crashing down with it.

edit to change b to n in lino

[Gothmog]

120. The Wall Streeters who actually like Elizabeth Warren

Link to tweet

But not everyone on Wall Street hates her. In fact, there are plenty of people who believe the idea of Warren in the White House sounds pretty good. And it’s not a grudging acceptance of her worldview but instead genuine support for it.

Some in the industry believe that the excesses of the financial system continue to be a problem in the wake of the Great Recession and that corporate concentration, wealth inequality, and lax regulation are still issues that need addressing. Do they think she’s 100 percent right on everything? No. But they know she’s smart, and they think she’s approaching policy with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. They believe Warren when she says she is a capitalist and are on board with her brand of capitalism.

“A place like mine chooses winners economically,” said a Goldman Sachs vice president. “Is that right? It doesn’t seem like that is right.”

I spoke with more than three dozen people from across the financial sector — professionals who work at hedge funds, big banks, and private equity funds, in asset management, financial advice, investment banking, trading, research, and compliance — who support Warren’s presidential bid. They know if she lands in the White House that may make their jobs a bit different, their companies a little less lucrative, or mean they’ll pay more in taxes. And they think that’s great. They support Warren because of her policies, not in spite of them.