Frank was on the board of Signature Bank, that should tell you a lot about how useless Dodd-Frank was. The Biden admin had 2 years of total congressional control to overturn Trump's rollback of these supposedly amazing regulatory requirements.
Government encouragement of risky behavior due to bailouts is the problem, not deregulation.
I think it's reasonable to say that both things are bad. We need more stringent regulation and we need to stop bailing out bad actors. I can't fathom why the government voluntarily dialed FDIC insurance up to infinity for this particular bank crash - the rules around how FDIC insurance should work are extreme clear.
Either the government wants more control over the market, and failing banks that require bailouts does that or they're just receiving so much money under the table from these people it behooves them to bail them out.
I think stopping the bailout is in effect mostly enough "regulation" on its own. Anything else requires very good analysts watching this stuff and enforcing the regulation. From what I've seen, the government is very bad at enforcing most of their regulation. They're unable to do it with firearms, and they're unable to do it with the financial industry.
Dems had the Senate and House. Stop with the gaslighting. If you want to let them pull the wool over your eyes over and over and blame the guy that's been out of office for 3 years for their failures, I guess you kinda deserve what you get.
If you don't have 60 seats in the Senate, you don't control it under current rules. 41 Senators is all it takes to declare a bill filibustered and dead.
These rules are a severe perversion of the intention of a filibuster. They absolutely should be undone, but both parties are too afraid of giving up power when they have less than the majority. It's obscene and a perfect illustration of American politics.
I’d be fine with the preservation of the filibuster if it was a true filibuster. Make the people who want to stop the bill stand up in front of the Senate and the world and make their case, indefinitely, until something gives.
Now it’s just a cheap veto with no meaningful short-term cost.
The argument that I've heard is that a speaking filibuster results in inability to pass other bills through the chamber. So we can at least get other bills passed, but also some bills which can't be voted on would be able to get through because it's so easy to block things. I'm not sure which option is better.
Halting all Senate activity should be a consequence of of the filibuster. It increases the negative consequences of using it, something that is desperately needed. Right now there is basically zero cost to filibustering anything, so it happens all the time and tons of legislation isn't even proposed for debate since it's not the worth the hassle when senators know bills will just be filibustered anyway. If using what is supposed to be an extreme tool came with more consequences senators would (hopefully) reserve usage for more extreme legislation. If using the filibuster angered other members of your party who have worked hard to move bills through the legislative process there would be a lot more pushback to using it every time there is a day in the week.
The 1972 2 track rule has made it far easier to sustain a filibuster since there is little to no pressure from other minority members to compromise or just move on. The 2nd track allows just enough bill movement to prevent backlash from more moderate members.
The House used to have a filibuster rule in the 1800s. They finally got rid of it exactly because it ended up blocking everything... then restored it... then got rid of it again.
With the more than 20 years, and continuing, of Republican overrepresentation in the Senate, control by the Democratic majority is impossible. What needs to happen is making D.C. and Puerto Rico States of the Union and get rid of the Electoral College. Only then will the federally elected actually represent the voters.
Imagine being a manager of any business, and when something goes wrong on your watch you say "Hey! Remember, that guy that was the manager 3 years ago? Yeah, it was his/her fault." How do you think that would go for you?
I do find it slightly entertaining you let these people spit in your face, place the blame on others, and then just accept them laughing at your blind faith in them.
I think you're also mistaking my dislike for a certain group, and presenting a strawman argument trying to conflate that with support for another group.
Government encouragement of risky behavior due to bailouts is the problem, not deregulation.