Weaken regulations, trains and banks crash, but hey small government, slash the red tape.
One difference is that when things start breaking, Democrats are willing to reconsider de/regulation, while GOP blames the government (even if there had not been inspections for years) and doubles down.
Some Dems voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, but more voted to keep it. The GOP votes was far more lopsided in favor of repeal.
Do you really think far away rich people are working to make things better for you?
If a train spills chemicals, they should be liable for a satisfactory resolution, including buying a property that was polluted, or paying for the cleanup and any depreciation of the property.
At the end of the parable of Job, God gives Job all new sons and daughters to replace the sons and daughters that were crushed during the game with Satan. I never considered that as a thing that made Job whole. In case of devastating and prevetable disaster, the train companies will just declare bankruptcy and the owners will start new train companies, or they'll nationalize themselves and sell to the government at an inflated price.
edit: these companies were all formed by groups of insiders that were handed state property for free; they have typical post-Soviet oligarch origin stories.
1) Hold interest rates near zero, inflating the fuck out of the economy
2) Use government to destroy market value of distant maturing bonds by holding real interest rates deeply negative and then rapidly inverting it. Force people to seek ever more risky investments and long term low interest MBS securities just to barely not even break even.
3) Suck all the liquidity out of the market by using fed to raise interest rates sharply
4) Banks fail
5) "There wasn't enough government intervention, we need more!"
Now we could move the goal posts to something else, but the question you ask is not hard to find examples of.
> doing unwise things
In retrospect anything that causes a failure is going to be characterized as "unwise." You could say the wisest thing would be to create a 100% reserve ratio by passing through deposits to the central bank, yet it's impossible to get a banking license to do that. We're left with various shades of unwise.
Instead, the only thing we see is a single bank that failed due to voluntarily tying up too much of their capital in instruments that cannot be easily liquidated.
At the end one person is dead.
Clearly since that one person followed the sector wide regulation and polices rather than anything that targeted that specific person, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with that person, not the dice game. Were this a problem with the game or the dice or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more damage.
Instead, the only thing we see is one person who lost the dice game voluntarily rolling the dice at the improper starting position and velocity that cannot be easily rolled to the correct number.
Clearly this isn't the same, but the logic you've used doesn't parse and in any case the full fault is unlikely to be fully the fault of government nor the bank. And it remains to be seen if the dice game is over...