The banks won't be able to make BILLIONS off of fees and penalties if this bill goes through.

While I agree that reform is needed in the realm of banking oversight, I do wonder about the wisdom of allowing each State to impose different rules on national banks that operate within their borders. While many will argue that banks tend to make big profits, giving States oversight would increase administrative costs related to dealing with different rules in different states, and it would mean that consumers would no longer be guaranteed a common experience across state lines. Banks are not likely to trim their profits to absorb those costs, so they are likely to pass them on to their customers.

You might want to carefully examine your 401(k) and other investments – if you look close enough, you will probably find some commercial bank holdings. As for the regulation, if it passes as described (with individual states governing each bank that does business within its borders; look out for even lower savings rates, higher credit rates and even more fees. The cost would be exceptional. Don’t believe me, just ask anyone in the insurance industry. There are too many ignorant people out there that don’t take the time to do their own research. Davis is a good spokesperson for the banks here. It appears as though U.S. Bank never made the risky loans or investments that other financial institutions did. They continue to make money and grow in spite of the economy.

Credit card interest rates used to be limited in MN to 12% by law. Then the national government adopted preemption, and all the credit card companies moved their credit card operations to the state with the least regulation allowing the highest rates. No one has credit cards from MN banks any more (check where your billing comes from). Look how well that worked out for the nation. The average family doesn't need six credit cards and $20,000 in credit card debt. The banks are happy to give more credit cards to people who shouldn't have them because bigger risk means bigger rewards for the banks.

But when the States are being given power by the Feds, then business doesn't want it. Regulation needs to start locally, because it's pretty clear that federal regulation hasn't worked. It isn't about costs increasing for banks, it is about limiting how much banks can fleece us!

Stiffer regulations for the banks, health insurance co.'s, and any other industry that has driven our country and people to the verge of bankruptcy through their unscrupulous business practices. While I don't begrudge anyone making tons of money ethically and legitimately, I certainly resent the rich getting richer while I have lost the majority of my retirement and also face the possibility of losing my job. I haven't worked all my life to continually enrich the already monied classes.

..I don't know about you, but until the most recent government regulation, I was paying less than 8% on my credit card. Now, while my credit score has improved I'm paying (if I ever kept a balance) 14%. Good old governemnt. JEANNEMARIE - the problem here is that nobody wants to be an informed consumer and investor and learn the rules of the game (they really aren't that complex). The second part is that few (I'm talking the investment banks and hedge fund managers, not most commercial banks) who took risks and lost suffered consequences.

I'm still paying less than 8% on my only credit card , have an excellent credit rating and consider myself to be well informed, do not insult my intelligence.

laws regulating banking occurred in 1983 during a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency. One of the effects of this legislation was to nullify the effect of state usury laws. This allowed the increase in the credit and borrowing market by building the risk into higher interest rates. Basically, Congress and the President opened the door for abusive lending practices in 1983.

and due to the interstate business decision by the courts, all the banks will move to the state with the loosest rules.