if the government did not print there would be no revenue. all revenue was at one time printed as well. I suppose then you are decrying not printing per se, but the rate of printing. That seems like a valid concern to me. So your concern is with Congress which has 100% control over the annualized rate of printing. The Fed has no control over that. What specifically do you object to in Dodd-Frank?
Dodd-Frank did nothing substantial to stop another financial crisis. It didn't go after the Fed, TBTF banks or those who pushed sub-prime loans to "fight wacism!". Instead, it punished people like retail FX traders and real estate investors (seller financing) that has absolutely nothing to do with 2008. Those are just two of many classes of people negatively affected by "unintended consequences" of an 848-page "we have to pass it to see how much damage it does" bill. Of course it doesn't help that one of the two filthy people behind it hired a male prostitute as his personal aide, had a partner running a prostitute ring out of their apartment and should've been out of office (probably in jail as a pedo criminal) long before he could pass awful legislation.
Your moralizing,, non-germane comments aside, I would agree that politics resulted in a somewhat watered down version that, even so, is still under attack. When folks are profiting from something that is on balance harmful to the general public it is hard to get them to change their ways without pissing them off.