Maybe it's just me, but the federal government has done 'stress tests' of banks to see what kind of assets they need to have to remain viable. They've also bailed out many banks who were deemed 'too big to fail.'
Almost all banks offer credit cards on which they make a profit (if they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be offering them). That profit comes from interest and fees that they impose, charging higher fees/interest to those with riskier credit - a common practice everywhere.
The federal government (because it's such an expert at living within its budget and ensuring enough income to cover its debt) tells banks they need to have more resources, assets and income.
But they also tell the banks that they're charging too much in fees and interests on their credit cards and that they need to change/reduce those charges. This will reduce and, in some cases, eliminate certain profits that the banks rely upon for profitability.
These two actions are in direct contradiction.
How does this make any sense?