>>There were problems with the financial sector so we needed more regulation, We were unable to pass effective regulation that really addressed the problem, so we passed Dodd-Frank instead because we really needed to do something and at least Dodd-Frank was something. Makes a lot of sense to me - NOT.

When the financial sector did the proverbial in its own nest and ran away, leaving the taxpayer to clean up: yes, regulation was justified to prevent antisocial recurrence. The resulting Dodd-Frank may be an imperfect messy compromise, but lets not forget that Glass-Steagall was in response to failure of 5,000 banks after the Great Depression. Dismantling of Glass-Steagall (by Bill Clinton) to allow responsible market-driven bankers to exercise their full capabilities (!) contributed strongly to attempted failure of another 5,000 banks had the taxpayer not intervened to save the market from itself.

Since the banking sector cannot be trusted to regulate its own appetite, it deserves to be put on an enforced diet by hardworking taxpayers who'd like to eat their own lunch for a change.

>>Kinda like passing the ACA because we needed to do something about high medical costs and uninsured Americans. That did not exactly work out too well either.

Compared to what? Honestly, the insistence of comparing status-quo to Nirvana isn't viable. There was a healthcare system before ACA and it was experiencing huge cost inflation despite already costing more than any other nation per capita despite excluding tens of millions meaning the per capita cost actually is a lot higher. On and on it goes. The ACA is a baby step in the right direction.