Pretty much an accurate reflection of the Clinton/Sanders divide on the matter. There's a flock of fatter High Info sheep on the other side of the aisle who generally remain in unity on the matter- they just want to eliminate whatever modest regulation was put in place following the collapse. Because gubmint is bad and if you let those people win on anything the next thing you know we'll be buying the collectivist climate change hoax and eating gay wedding cake.
FWIW, I'm at a loss to find any compelling public interest in having any bank that is large enough to present systemic risk should it fail. Likewise for any commercial bank having an investment bank arm, or for any investment bank to be other than a private partnership where the partners have their own money at risk. Or, for financial machinations to enjoy any prefential tax treatment.
There may actually be a compelling case and it could be that the wackier elements of the Fat Sheep flock get it right by a little. It could be that since we've ceded the financial activities of The Empire to Wall Street over the last 35 years that extracting ourselves from it will be almost as difficult as extracting ourselves from the committed course of endless losing colonial warfare and the massive spending associated with it. And if you're a Fat Sheep you might prefer the slow collapse of The Empire if you remain relatively fatter than the others.
Whatever the route out might be, it isn't the gold standard or Bob n' Betty sitting down at the kitchen table to balance the family budget, as much as that might appeal to the Common Sense crowd And anyway, the last place any real reform is going to come from is the GOP, regardless what odd lots of sheep they usher into the flock.
.
