This should be ALL anybody is talking about today

[Amimnoch]

26. infuriating and disgusting.

Wrong is wrong, no matter if the person supports a candidate you support or not.. and this is wrong.

I ALMOST got to a point of arguing with you. I looked up the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4018

-to see what the actual wording was.

I was just about to type a post to argue with you and the article... the more I read down, the more I was thinking it was a good thing. It does have good requirements like:

require a provider to be licensed by the state;
establish a transaction database;
require a provider to verify through such database that a consumer entering into such a transaction does not have an outstanding transaction;
require a provider to report immediately to such database information about each transaction entered into and each transaction paid or settled;
require that a transaction agreement be in writing and allow the consumer to rescind the agreement within the first 24 hours;
require a transaction agreement to limit the interest and fees to no more that 10% of the transaction amount, the processing fee to $5, the transaction amount to $500, and the duration of the transaction to no less than seven days and no more than 31 days; and
allow a 60-day grace period after the contractual repayment date for a consumer to repay the amount due, subject to early termination if a consumer fails to complete a course with a consumer credit counseling agency.

Most of these sound fairly decent and reasonable to me. Then I got to the meat of the issue..

The bill makes this Act effective 24 months after its enactment and prohibits the CFPB from establishing or enforcing any regulation governing deferred presentment transactions or payday loans during such period.

Personally I've written the Hillary campaign asking them to denounce this bill,
DWS herself asking an explanation.
Writing my representative is useless since he's a Republican asshole whom I'm focusing my efforts to see his ass out of office this year.
and a letter to the whitehouse.gov asking the president to pledge to veto it unless either the 2 year delay part of it is removed, or the restriction on the CFPB is removed.

The only thing i can think of that "might" justify it is if the 2 year grace was added as a compromise to get the Republican votes needed to pass the bill. IF that is her reason, a 2 years of shit to have legal, and nationally legislated requirements limiting interest and providing some protections might be somewhat justifiable.