沈阳专治痘痘医院哪家比较好沈阳皮肤科专家hao评肤康,沈阳 医院 神经性皮炎,沈阳治疗干癣那个比较好,沈阳去哪家医院治疗白块好,沈阳哪家治疗脱发医院较好,沈阳治痤疮,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治皮肤科口碑怎么样正规吗

WASHINGTON — Congress is poised to pass one of the largest economic relief bills in history on Monday. New forms of direct payments will be issued to millions Americans under the bill, assuming it passes and is signed by President Donald Trump. HOW MUCH WILL YOU GET? The IRS will issue checks based on your AGI or adjusted gross income. The information will come from your latest tax return which for most Americans is the 2019 calendar year. If you earn ,000 a year or less, you'll receive 0. If you earn between ,000 and ,000 a year, the amount will be prorated. The more your make, the less you'll get until you hit that ,000 threshold. Earners over that amount will not receive any money. Head of households will be able to earn up to 2,000 a year and still be eligible for a check. Couples who file their taxes jointly will earn similar levels to those who file individually. For instance, a couple who earns 0,000 or less a year will receive ,200. Couples who earn between 0,000 and 4,000 will receive less than ,200.Those with dependents, such as a child, will earn 0 per child. That's actually 0 more than what dependents received earlier this year. WHEN WILL CHECKS BE SENT?Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said as soon as Congress approves the deal, he'll be able to begin depositing checks within a week. Those with direct deposit on file with the IRS will receive their money first. Paper checks will take longer. 1482

WASHINGTON — The United States has given the final go-ahead to the nation’s first COVID-19 vaccine, marking what could be the beginning of the end of an outbreak that has killed nearly 300,000 Americans.Vaccine distribution for health care workers and nursing home residents are expected to begin in the coming days after the Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized an emergency rollout of what promises to be a strongly protective vaccine from Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech.Initial doses are scarce and rationed as the U.S. joins Britain and several other countries in scrambling to vaccinate as many people as possible ahead of winter.It will take months of work to tamp down the coronavirus that has surged to catastrophic levels in recent weeks and claimed 1.5 million lives globally. 815

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats ignored a veto threat and rammed legislation through the House Tuesday that would stymie President Donald Trump's bid for billions of extra dollars for his border wall, escalating a clash over whether he was abusing his powers to advance his paramount campaign pledge.The House's 245-182 vote to block Trump's national emergency declaration throws the political hot potato to the Republican-run Senate, where there were already enough GOP defections to edge it to the cusp of passage. Vice President Mike Pence used a lunch with Republican senators at the Capitol to try keeping them aboard, citing a dangerous crisis at the border, but there were no signs he'd succeeded."I personally couldn't handicap the outcome at this point," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who's planning a vote within the next three weeks.Senate passage would force Trump's first veto, which Congress would surely lack the votes to override. But the showdown was forcing Republicans to cast uncomfortable votes pitting their support for a president wildly popular with GOP voters against fears that his expansive use of emergency powers would invite future Democratic presidents to do likewise for their own pet policies.Underscoring their desire to avoid a tally suggesting that Trump's hold on lawmakers was weakening, House Republican leaders worked to keep the number of GOP supporters below 53. That's how many would be needed to reach a two-thirds majority of 288 votes, assuming all Democrats vote "yes," the margin required for a veto override.Thirteen House Republicans joined all voting Democrats Tuesday to support the Democratic resolution.The White House wrote to lawmakers formally threatening to veto the legislation. The letter said blocking the emergency declaration would "undermine the administration's ability to respond effectively to the ongoing crisis at the Southern Border."Republicans said Democrats were driven by politics and a desire to oppose Trump at every turn, and said Trump had clear authority to declare an emergency to protect the country. They also defended the president's claims of a security crisis along the boundary with Mexico, which he has said is ravaged by drug smugglers, human traffickers and immigrants trying to sneak into the U.S. illegally."We are at war on the Southern border with the drug cartels," said Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas.Trump has asserted that barriers would stop drugs from Mexico from entering the U.S. In fact, government figures show that 90 percent of drugs intercepted from Mexico are caught at ports of entry, not remote areas where barriers would be constructed.Democrats said Republicans repeatedly accused former President Barack Obama of flouting the Constitution, which gives Congress control over spending, but are ignoring Trump's effort to do the same."Is your oath of office to Donald Trump, or is your oath of office to the Constitution?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asked Republicans.They said Trump's push for the wall reflected a continuation of the anti-immigrant views that helped fuel his election."Since when do we call human beings in need a national emergency?" said Mexican-born Rep. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, D-Ill. "Is he running out of insults for people like me?"Democrats also said the crisis is a fiction manufactured by Trump to dance around Congress' vote this month to provide less than .4 billion for barrier construction. That was well below the .7 billion Trump demanded as he futilely forced a record-setting 35-day federal shutdown."The president does not get to override Congress in a raucous temper tantrum over his inability to broker a deal" with lawmakers for more money, said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, sponsor of the one-sentence measure blocking the declaration, called Trump's move "constitutional vandalism."Trump used a 1976 law to declare a national emergency and ordered the shift of .6 billion from military construction projects to wall building. Citing other powers, he intends to shift another .1 billion from Defense Department anti-drug efforts and a fund that collects seized assets.The money would be used to build steel barriers up to 30 feet tall and other barriers and for "law enforcement efforts," said a White House statement.In the Senate, three Republicans have said they will back Democrats' drive to block the emergency declaration: Maine's Susan Collins, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and North Carolina's Thom Tillis. One more GOP defection would provide enough votes to approve the Democratic measure, assuming all Democrats and their independent allies back it.Republicans said senators asked Pence numerous questions about which projects Trump would divert to pay for the wall, with Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., saying the discussion was "hearty." Shelby, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, which controls spending, said his panel would quickly "backfill" money for military construction with other funds he did not identify."That issue won't stay alive long," Shelby told reporters.Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the chief GOP vote counter, said there may be GOP attempts to amend the House measure, saying Republicans "think they have amendments that would improve it."That suggests that McConnell may try finding a way to add language that could sink the Democratic resolution or, perhaps, make it more palatable for Republicans. The law requires the Senate to vote on a measure within 18 days of receiving it from the House.Though presidents have declared 58 emergencies under the law, this is the first aimed at acquiring money for an item Congress has explicitly refused to finance, according to Elizabeth Goitein, co-director for national security at New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice. This is also the first time Congress has cast votes on whether to annul an emergency declaration, she said.Even with Democrats' effort near-certain to ultimately fail, several lawsuits have been filed aimed at blocking the money, including by Democratic state attorneys general, progressive and environmental groups. Those suits at the very least are likely to delay access to those funds for months or years.___AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro and reporter Colleen Long contributed. 6336

VISTA (CNS) - A homeless man accused of killing a 77-year-old retiree during a burglary at the victim's Oceanside beach house plead not guilty Wednesday at the courthouse in Vista.Carey Lamont Reid Jr., 21, was arrested last Sunday in connection with the slaying of John Roth on Aug. 14.DNA evidence obtained from the crime scene led homicide detectives to identify Reid as the perpetrator, Oceanside Police spokesman Tom Bussey said. Reid is known to be a transient who lives in Oceanside.RELATED: Arrest made in death of Oceanside manOfficers were called to the 500 block of North Coast Highway on Sunday for a person lying on the ground in a parking lot, Bussey said. Officers arrived, identified the man as Reid and took him into custody.The parking lot is located directly behind the residence where Roth was found dead, Bussey said.A back door was found open, but there were no signs of forced entry or a struggle at Roth's home in the 500 block of North Tremont Street when he was found by his wife shortly before 7 a.m. on Aug. 14, Detective Erik Ellgard said.RELATED: Friends drink final toast to slain Oceanside Vietnam veteranRoth suffered two stab wounds to the neck while sitting on the couch, said Deputy District Attorney Keith Watanabe.Zui Pang, 41, had last seen her husband alive about 16 hours before she returned home, Ellgard said.Missing from the victim's home were some of the couple's possessions, including costume jewelry, a wooden jewelry box, an Asus laptop computer, an LG cellphone and Pang's wedding ring.Four days later, an acquaintance of the victim found Pang's stolen purse, photos of the couple and other personal effects of theirs dumped in an alley off North Ditmar Street, a few blocks from their home. 1759

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired — kill off the Affordable Care Act. That includes its key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans. The justices met a week after the election and remotely in the midst of a pandemic that has closed their majestic courtroom to hear the highest-profile case of the term so far. They took on the latest Republican challenge to the law known as “Obamacare,” with three appointees of President Donald Trump, an avowed foe of the health care law, among them.But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional.“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said.Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said.Tuesday’s arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask.“I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. 2495