I would like you to learn it and maybe get back to us on the answer.
Dodd-Frank did not codify too-big-to-fail. Just the opposite. It prevented it from happening in the future.
I would suggest very clearly that you are not wrong about competitiveness.
I agree with you, but I wish that some of my colleagues on the other side would finally hear that.
I particularly welcome your comments on Title II of Dodd-Frank. You have clearly stated that you are not too-big-to-fail.
Do you really think it is a smart idea to be cutting the legs out of one of those major regulators?
Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank says that if it has a direct and significant connection with activities in or an effect on the commerce of ...
anybody who is interested in breaking up some of these large institutions should sign on to H.R. 1489, which would reinstitute the Glass-Ste...
So it could have been a $20 billion item, it could have been a $200 billion item, it could have been every other major large bank.
I do think it is important to ask thoughtful, insightful questions about what happened--why they happened, and how we can prevent them from ...
It is also security, it is stability, it is operations under the rule of law.
I also fully agree with you on the simplification of regulators. I think we have too many regulators, as well.
Even Congressman Steve Pearce called these plans some of the most successful ever.
I think the rule of law is one of the things that makes this country great, and access to the courts is very important.
Today's hearing on the Endangered Species Act is another example of the great American giveaway.
This week on the House Floor, Republicans are pursuing their great American giveaway.
They are attacking the ability of citizens to bring suits against the Federal Government when it fails to follow the law.
If the Republican Majority really wanted to help species recover, they would be adding funds for endangered species restoration, not subtrac...
