Not to beat a dead horse, but …
In further follow-up to my post of yesterday (I already appended the original post yesterday) called, “Stories That Will Continue to Get Far Too Little Attention As Long As Obama Allows Them To.”: Reader coberly and I exchanged the following further comments in the Comments thread:
The intended point of my original post was that if Obama and the congressional Dems and want to leave a meaningful legacy on economics and finance-related matters–if they want to finally end the Repubs’ success at defeating or undermining that legacy–and if they want to regain control of the House in 2014 and tru ly put an end to the profoundly destructive three-decade “conservative-movement” juggernaut that in its current iteration continues to control the mainstream-media conversation and so much of actual policy despite their congressional legislative defeats in 2009 and 2010, and despite their significant popular-vote losses in the presidential, Senate, and House elections last November, the Dems have to engage in a concerted national effort to inform the public about what, in past news-media and political eras, the public would know from observation.
Whew. That was a long sentence. I’m out of breath.
But I’m actually not beating a dead horse. The horse isn’t dead.
The question begging to be answered is: if O and the Dems are so pro-people, pro-middle class-little guy, then why do they have to be prompted, pushed, or even shamed and embarrassed to do the obvious in relation of Big Banks?
Or with China on currency manipulation?
Or with Big Pharma and its egregious rip-off of the American people?
Gee, maybe having a West Wing stand-in for the presidency image-wise was never enough.
It ain’t just the GOP that needs major revision of its POV.
The point of my posts, Roy, is that O. and the Dems not only were already prompted to do something about the banks’ abuse of consumers; they DID do something about it. A few things–including establishing the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and enacting the statute that bars to the $400 Starbuck’s cup of coffee. Both pieces of legislation were enacted in 2010 but had delayed effective/implementation dates.
What O and the Dems need to do NOW is inform/remind the public of these things and educate them about Republican attempts to undermine Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.
Not sure how you missed that point, since, clearly, I was talking about already-enacted statutes.
Speaking as a dead horse
I think O and the 400 dollar Starbucks is a good example of appearing to be “for the people” in a trivial matter while selling the country to the banksters wholesale.
I am about 98% on your side on substantive issues, but I think your tactics are counterproductive.
Free checking accounts (no overdraft fees) for the poor poor, and free cigarettes because they are so stressed out.. is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the voters… even poor voters.
I got that. I even appreciated the reduction of ten cents on my debit card.
But Obama’s reform could hurt local community banks and favors Wall St.
In my view, the Dems shy away from true reform because they are still solidly under the direction of Wall St.
Have the Dems brought back Glass-Steagal? Uptick rule?
My point is that the enemy of free markets and the American people is not found only on one side.