When it comes to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, what is not to like? For consumers to argue it seems, well, ridiculous.
“And while I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one,” Obama said earlier today. I hope he means it, because imo it is long overdue (and then some).
It protects consumers from risky financial products and has become the chief target of the banking industry, which stands to lose profits and fears it would create "conflicting regulations." Give me a BREAK.
They fear that they will have to stop their double dealing low down ways, or at least part of them. You know, I know it, they know it, and more importnatly, the president knows it.
But Obama said the industry needed to clean up the practices that led to the financial crisis.
“It’s no coincidence that the lack of strong consumer protections led to abuses against consumers; the lack of rules to stop deceptive lending practices led to abuses against borrowers,” Obama said. “This new agency will have the responsibility to change that. It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want – and actually understand.”
Wow, what we want and what we can understand, both in the same breath....wow, what a concept.
I am for it, how about you? If not, please share your reasoning, and make it something other than if it makes sense, and sounds like it is for the consumers benefit, that it must be something that you must oppose if you are on the right, simply because you know that everyone else on your side of the aisle will be opposing it because it doesn't put the interests over the banks over the people. We know that. That became clear when Bush and Paulen demanded we bail out the banks and Wall St last fall, and also demanded that we not ask where the money was going, or what they were doing with it, or the world would end that weekend (yes, that's right, we all recall when it started, in the fall of '08, weeks before the election).
“And while I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one,” Obama said earlier today. I hope he means it, because imo it is long overdue (and then some).
It protects consumers from risky financial products and has become the chief target of the banking industry, which stands to lose profits and fears it would create "conflicting regulations." Give me a BREAK.
They fear that they will have to stop their double dealing low down ways, or at least part of them. You know, I know it, they know it, and more importnatly, the president knows it.
But Obama said the industry needed to clean up the practices that led to the financial crisis.
“It’s no coincidence that the lack of strong consumer protections led to abuses against consumers; the lack of rules to stop deceptive lending practices led to abuses against borrowers,” Obama said. “This new agency will have the responsibility to change that. It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want – and actually understand.”
Wow, what we want and what we can understand, both in the same breath....wow, what a concept.
I am for it, how about you? If not, please share your reasoning, and make it something other than if it makes sense, and sounds like it is for the consumers benefit, that it must be something that you must oppose if you are on the right, simply because you know that everyone else on your side of the aisle will be opposing it because it doesn't put the interests over the banks over the people. We know that. That became clear when Bush and Paulen demanded we bail out the banks and Wall St last fall, and also demanded that we not ask where the money was going, or what they were doing with it, or the world would end that weekend (yes, that's right, we all recall when it started, in the fall of '08, weeks before the election).