HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren Should S...

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:11 AM

 

Elizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate

Warren’s agenda is not Clinton’s agenda. Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton expects Wall Street to look fundamentally different at the end of a Clinton administration? Does she think that JPMorgan Chase should be downsized and broken up so that its current structure will not be recognizable in 2025? Does Clinton expect Wall Street to be doing half the trading volume in 2025 that it does today, so that the high-rollers will have to look to the productive economy to make big bucks? Does she think that some of her campaign’s biggest contributors will be in the jail cell next to Bernie Madoff?

That seems implausible. More likely, in Clinton’s vision Wall Street in 2015 looks pretty much the same as it does today. There may be better consumer and prudential regulation, but no one will have any problem finding JPMorgan.

In the Senate, Warren could force Clinton to alter her vision. Warren’s agenda has enormous power and popular appeal, as demonstrated by the success of the Sanders campaign and by Warren’s own success in pushing for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other reforms. In fact, the popularity of a FTT even led Clinton to endorse a sham FTT that would apply only to high-frequency trading and would likely be avoided by almost everyone.

more at-- https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-should-stay-in-the-senate/

15 replies, 1534 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:46 AM

1. Nope. Warren will do fine as VP, positioning for Prez in 2020. MA has a Kennedy in the wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 12:03 PM

9. EW would likely be one of the most active VPs in the modern era

We have so much to gain with her at VP, it more than compensates for any supposed losses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:54 AM

2. Warren will make a great VP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:03 AM

3. I agree.

 

I feel she should stay in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:08 AM

4. "Warren’s agenda is not Clinton’s agenda." - says who?

Assuming that one understands Warren's motivations is a bit presumptuous. Warren agrees with Clinton on significantly more issues than not, and Elizabeth was one of the first people to fully encourage Clinton to run.

I think the author is seeing a chasm where one doesn't exist. That's been a common theme this primary season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:06 PM

11. The Wall Streeters certainly don't believe that...

 

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:15 PM

13. Oh, please

"All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath."

Oh, no, not the wrath of Warren! Not that!

It's an empty threat. They all know that Trump wins and the economy tanks - their analysts are telling them so, and Brexit is foreshadowing it. Even with Warren on the ticket, they aren't going anywhere.

"“First of all, they don’t particularly like each other,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her."

That article is loaded with the same "they hate each other" nonsense that I'm talking about. Their assertions are no less presumptuous than that of the OP's article's writer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:23 PM

15. I apologize...I did not know that you have entrée into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign...

 

and a personal relationship with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.

And there are many people on Wall Street who would make a huge fortune if Trump tanked the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:08 AM

5. Correct.

As VP she would be muzzled and lose her effectiveness.

Her most valuable place in the Senate. (Or as POTUS)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:46 AM

6. Yes, she should stay right where she is.

The VP slot is not a partisan role. The VP, just as the president, is there to serve the whole country, not just those who want to blow up Wall St. As the VP, Elizabeth Warren would be muzzled, and far less effective than she is as a prominent progressive voice in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:03 PM

10. Wanting to regulate Wall Street probably is the same as blowing it up...

 

for those who make millions with their financial schemes. Curious turn of phrase that...

On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) headlined an event that launched a new coalition calling itself “Take On Wall Street.”
The group includes lawmakers like Warren, Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), labor leaders like the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka and the AFT’s Randi Weingarten, as well as civil rights groups, community groups, and the organizing giant Move On. It aims to put pressure on lawmakers at all levels to pass stricter rules governing the financial system.
Operating on two principles — “No cheating, and no pushing the risks on taxpayers,” as Warren put it — it’s making five key demands: breaking up the biggest banks; ensuring access to non-predatory banking products, including through the United States Post Office; ending the carried interest tax loophole that allows hedge fund managers to use a tax break for investment income on the income they make at work; reining in executive bonuses; and imposing a financial transaction tax.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/05/24/3781504/take-on-wall-street/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:50 AM

7. Is that why warren has been supporting Clinton to run since 2014

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:16 PM

14. I know. This continued insistence that there's some huge chasm between the two is ridiculous.

She could be VP for eight years and they'll still be whining about how much they hate each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:55 AM

8. Elizabeth Warren should make her own decisions about her career

and any VP opportunity presented her, should it be offered. Internet board warriors should not presume to tell Elizabeth Warren what she should do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Original post)

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:08 PM

12. I think Sen. Warren would be an outstanding, very active VP

 

if she was offered the position.

She would continue to be a great Senator as well if not.

She, and we, win whichever way she goes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread