Elizabeth Warren on why Wall Street prefers Clinton: ‘Nuclear war is bad for business’
Sen. Elizabeth Warren thinks Wall Street’s monetary shift from the Republican party to the Democratic party this election just represents their fear of Donald Trump.
Or, as she so simply puts it: “Nuclear war is bad for business.”
Warren’s remark comes in an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek published on Thursday that covers her thoughts on the bipartisan push to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, the Obama administration’s record on Wall Street, and the impending political death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
She also, of course, talked Trump. Warren has been the Democratic party’s most forceful and direct critic of the businessman, calling him a “thin-skinned moneygrubber” and a “fraud” in a series of speeches and tweets.
In the Bloomberg interview, Warren was asked why she thought Wall Street bankers had given so much more money to Hillary Clinton than to Trump, and whether that meant Wall Street would exert more pressure on Democrats to act on their behalf.
“I don’t see it as a swing back to Democrats so much as I see it as supporting sanity,” Warren said. “The financial-services people, as much as many of them would like to see more deregulation, are also deeply frightened by the prospect of a Trump presidency. Nuclear war is bad for business.”
The question gets at an issue that was prominently raised by Bernie Sanders, who accused Clinton of being too close to Wall Street. Clinton has faced criticism for being paid $675,000 to give three private speeches to Goldman Sachs. Back in 2001, Warren also accused then-Sen. Clinton of supporting a bankruptcy bill because she needed campaign contributions from bankers.
Still, despite their differing policies toward Wall Street, Warren endorsed Clinton at the Democratic National Convention last week.
https://twitter.com/business/status/761187112796450817
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com