"President Obama's 2010 overhaul of the financial system, which is meant to protect consumers from bad banking practices, curbed the ability of banks to charge customers overdraft fees."

As outrageous as some of the fees were, the question remains: why is the federal government involved in this?

If someone is dumb enough to choose a bank that nails them on fees, that's their problem. Are the feds also going to whack my knuckles if I buy too much candy in the checkout lane?

Practically speaking: You can always search out a local bank or a credit union; they exist to serve private customers, and have never charged the fees of the big banks. This has always been an option. I haven't used anything except credit unions for decades, precisely because they are not out to screw their own customers.

This is a job for the feds...why?

They pay next to nothing in interest on deposits. They earn around 4% on mortgages, 7% on auto loans, and north of 20% on credit cards. They have automated tellers nearly out of existence. How can a bank not make money? Vegas wishes they could get as big a cut.

They don't need government help. The government needs to limit their size and stay our of the details. Then they won't be "too big to fail" and we won't need to bail them out.

Credit Unions are the way to go. I adore mine. Low rates on all loans, low and no fees, great customer service (they actually know my name) and they do tons of fun stuff for the community all the time. Amplify rocks!

"As outrageous as some of the fees were, the question remains: why is the federal government involved in this?"

There is a kernel of justification here: a lot of these regs on overdraft fees go back to the period of the late '80s / early '90s, when many of the regional banks were colluding on overdraft fees. Some banks were starting to charge fees on merchants who presented checks that didn't clear, and there was a move afoot among the banks to "standardize" these fees and set up an inter-bank mechanism which would allow the fees to be automatically deducted from the merchant's bank account, which enraged the merchants. That's why so many merchants now either don't accept personal checks at all, or use an electronic check-verification system that, in effect, makes the check work like a debit card.

Having said all that: this business of regulating the overdraft fees is a wimp-out on the federal government's part. The proper response would be to hit the banks that are colluding with anti-trust charges. But it's a lot easier to just adopt a regulation, and politically it's a double win: it makes the government look like it's doing something for the little guy, and it avoids pissing off the government's banking-industry cronies.

And yeah, credit unions.

I found a 'high' interest checking, 2.5% up to $10,000.

I also love my CU, the only problems I have is they closed one branch which makes them inconvienient for the rare times I need face to face. And most ATMs aren't on their network so charge fees.
I have a regular big bank to offset the ATM/location problems, but they are making it difficult.

Are you trying to argue that this is a bad outcome, ending a situation where the poor have been subsidizing the middle class? Where the self-employed have been subsidizing the corporate whores with their direct deposit?

The college student's overdraft fees have been paying for their parents free checking for the last two decades. Occupy should cheer this outcome. But instead they'll bleat on about corporate profits.

On the other side it's a terrible example to focus your anti-regulation zeal upon. Regulation, as the narrative goes, achieved more straight forward pricing and removed a subsidy. They're correcting a price distortion, bad time to beat on 'em.

The price has been hidden from us for so long that consumers under 35 have no idea what a checking account should cost (but they know exactly what an over draft fee will run). Just look at all the comments advocating uprooting your financial life over 5 dollars a month. Nothing against credit unions but, hell, the design of their mobile app is -or should be - a more important factor in that decision.

"Are the feds also going to whack my knuckles if I buy too much candy in the checkout lane?"

SHHH! Don't give them any ideas! They already mumble about taxing soda every few years!

I just wonder of how many of you have heard about the MERS system?

Read and wonder how safe your money is in the bank?

Getting back to this: The fundamental issue is being missed here. You know what it is? It is this: When the Fed is giving out free money, small depositors are more trouble than they are worth. Banks don't need small depositors anymore. Since the federal government is keeping interest rates near zero and the Fed is cranking out cash so that the government can keep giving out free Obama phones, banks can get all the money they can lend out, and more, without you and your measly $1000 checking and savings accounts.

(In a past era, the Fed would have at least been constrained by how fast they could crank the printing presses. Today, though, central banking is all electronic. Another $500B is only a few keystrokes away. The Fed can double the money supply overnight if it wants to.)

If this trend doesn't stop soon, banking will develop into a two-tier systems. People who have millions to deposit will have access to private banks, which will offer full services and interest-bearing accounts. These will be invitation only. You and I will deposit our paychecks in places that are called "banks" but are really just money warehouses. Everything will have a fee and there won't be any kind of account that earns interest. And dealing with the bank will be like dealing with the DMV. We really won't be any better off than the people who cash their paychecks at the Bank of Publix and keep their money under the mattress.