梅州哪家人流做得好(梅州慢性附件炎的治疗方式) (今日更新中)

President-elect Joe Biden’s proposal to forgive ,000 of federal student debt as COVID relief could erase loan balances for 15 million borrowers and reduce balances for millions more, according to federal data.Broad student loan forgiveness could affect 45.3 million borrowers with federal student loan debt who owe a total of .54 trillion to the government. Wiping out ,000 each — as Biden calls for — would result in up to 9 billion canceled.Seth Frotman, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, says removing the student loans “albatross around their financial lives” could mean the difference for consumers who aspire to buy a house, save for retirement or start a business.“Student loan borrowers across the spectrum — old, young, urban, rural, high-balance, low-balance, Black, white — are hurting with their student loans, and that was before COVID even hit,” Frotman says.For now, Biden’s proposal is just an amount, with no details to answer questions about which loans might be canceled, whether forgiven amounts would be taxed and if borrowers would have defaulted loans removed from their credit history. It also faces huge hurdles politically.But here’s how ,000 in forgiveness could affect some categories of borrowers.For 15 million borrowers, a slate wiped cleanMore than a third of federal borrowers could see their balances fall to zero with ,000 in debt cancelation. Among those, 7.9 million owe less than ,000 in student loans and 7.4 million owe between ,000 and ,000, according to federal data.These are also the borrowers most likely to default on their loans. Over half of those who default (52%) have less than ,000 of federal undergraduate debt, according to an analysis of federal data by The Institute for College Access and Success, or TICAS.That’s because those with lower debt amounts often have not completed their schooling, so they don’t reap the benefits of a degree that leads to a better paying job. Among those who default, 49% did not complete their program of study, TICAS found.Default has severe consequences: It can sabotage credit scores and trigger collection efforts that can include seizure of tax refunds and Social Security payments.Many of these borrowers are current on their payments. For them, forgiveness could help, but it might not be much of a boon to the overall economy, says Betsy Mayotte, president and founder of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors.“If you owe ,000 and your payment is 0 — and that’s a lot of money to a lot of people — but you all of a sudden don’t have to pay 0 a month, I don’t see that 0 being put toward something that will stimulate the economy,” Mayotte says.For 19 million borrowers, some breathing roomThe typical student leaves school with around ,000 in debt, according to TICAS, an amount that can grow quickly with interest if students pause payments or go on repayment plans that allow them to make lower payments.Nearly 19 million borrowers owe between ,000 and ,000 in federal student loans, according to federal data. Without detailed execution plans from the Biden team, it’s trickier to say how these borrowers would be affected.For example, cancellation might not reduce the amount they pay each month, but it could draw their end date closer and lower the total amount they’d pay overall, due to interest. Or it might wipe out one loan completely but leave payments on others intact.For 11 million borrowers, a drop in the bucketHigher income households, as a whole, are the ones that hold the most debt.The high debt/high earner correlation makes sense because those who make more money tend to have more advanced education, according to findings from Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce. To get those advanced degrees, students rack up debt in the process.More than 8 million people owe the government between ,000 and 0,000 in student loans. An additional 3.2 million borrowers owe more than 0,000 on their federal loans, data show.A borrower repaying 0,000 on the standard federal 10-year plan at 5% interest would pay off the loans 15 months early if ,000 were forgiven.Forgiveness is still a big maybeThere’s also the question of how loan forgiveness could move forward: Will it be through Congress or executive action or not at all?“If anything can be done by executive action, [forgiveness] could happen very quickly,” says Robert Kelchen, associate professor of higher education at Seton Hall University. “I’m just not sure whether forgiving debt would withstand legal scrutiny.”Experts say any executive action could face lawsuits or be subject to judicial review, which would leave the fate of an order for forgiveness in the hands of the Supreme Court.“There are a lot of conservative judges, so I can imagine that many of them could be hostile to the policy,” says Wesley Whistle, senior advisor for policy and strategy, higher education at the public policy think tank New America.Mayotte said she is doubtful borrowers will see straight forgiveness since the reach of this type of pandemic relief wouldn’t be as broad as, say, providing supplemental unemployment or propping up small businesses.Forgiveness won’t happen before payments restartBiden proposed his forgiveness measure as part of COVID-related relief, but experts say there’s an even more pressing student loan concern that will come to a head before Biden starts his term — the end of the payment pause for student loan borrowers, which is set to sunset after Dec. 31.Doug Webber, associate professor of economics at Temple University, says he’s worried about the pitfalls of going “zero to 60” in one day with reinstating loan payments for a population that isn’t ready.“Once you give people a benefit, it’s always harder to take it back,” Webber says.The payment pause, known as a forbearance, has been in effect since March as part of the first coronavirus relief bill. President Donald Trump extended the relief through the end of the year, but neither the outgoing or incoming administration has committed to extending it again.While borrowers await the fate of forgiveness, they should contact their servicer to get enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan if they won’t be able to afford their payments. These plans set payments at a portion of their income and can be as low as zero if they’re unemployed.NerdWallet writer Ryan Lane contributed additional reporting to this story.More From NerdWallet10+ Student Loan Forgiveness Programs That Discharge LoansFederal Loans Are Paused Until 2021 — Should You Pay Anyway?Income-Driven Repayment: Is It Right for You?Anna Helhoski is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: anna@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @AnnaHelhoski. 6765

RANCHO SANTA FE, Calif. (KGTV) — The Fairbanks Ranch Country Club is an oasis along an otherwise remote stretch of road that winds away from Del Mar.But for a number of female employees working inside its clubhouse, it was something much darker.A new lawsuit filed by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that around 2016, former manager Shant Karian sexually harassed a number of the workers, with financial consequences if they didn't play along.For one of the workers, the suit says Karian repeatedly made sexual advances, hitting her buttocks, putting his arm around her waste and choking her, and repeatedly pursuing her sexually. He told another to wear a tighter blouse, and sent one text messages asking to see her backside, the suit says.RELATED: Carmel Mountain Ranch residents raise concerns over golf course closureKarian also allegedly told male customers one worker could give them lap dances.The lawsuit says Karian made the schedule, and those who didn't comply were subject to lower pay rates, reduced hours, and threatened with termination.Karian did not return a call seeking comment.Annie Appel, a spokeswoman for club owner The Bay Club Company, says Fairbanks Ranch terminated Karian for cause after an internal investigation in October 2016 after an internal investigation."The Bay Club Company is aware of the EEOC’s allegations and will respond in a timely manner to the claims made in the complaint," Appel said. "TBCC is committed to a safe, harassment-free work environment for everyone."Anna Park, an attorney for the EEOC, said sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be an issue nationwide."The power differential is really what is the problem in these harassment cases," she said. "This way the burden is on the employer to make sure the employees know where to go."The lawsuit says Fairbanks Ranch didn't take action to help the employees, even deterring them from making complaints. 1960

President Trump on Monday denied that he offered Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) a million charitable donation if she would take a DNA test that proved she had Native American heritage."Who cares," Trump said when asked about Warren's DNA test. "I didn't say that, you'd better read it again."During a rally in Great Falls, Montana on July 5, Trump posed a hypothetical scenario in which he and Warren squared off in a presidential debate. Trump stated that if Warren were to bring up her claimed Native American heritage during the debate, he would immediately ask her to prove her bloodline with a DNA test."We will say, 'I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the (DNA) test and it shows you're an Indian,'" Trump said.Warren called out Trump's false statement in a tweet on Monday."Having some memory problems, @realDonaldTrump? Should we call for a doctor?" Warren tweeted.  970

Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, announced he is launching an investigation surrounding Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech at the Republican National Convention. Pompeo’s speech is set to be broadcast during Tuesday’s portion of the RNC.Castro wants to probe whether the speech violates both the Hatch Act and State Department rules.The Hatch Act is intended to limit political activities by executive branch employees other than the president and vice president. While violating the Hatch Act is not criminal, there are potential civil fines for violations. The act also calls for violators of the act to be reprimanded or terminated from their positions if found in violation.But in the past, the Trump administration has not acted on violations of the Hatch Act. Most notably, the Office of the Special Counsel recommended that Trump aide Kellyanne Conway be removed from her White House post after allegedly violating the act multiple times. Pompeo is delivering his remarks during an official trip to Israel.“The Trump administration and Secretary Pompeo have shown a gross disregard not only of basic ethics, but also a blatant willingness to violate federal law for political gain. Congress has a responsibility to stand up for the rule of law and hold them accountable for this corrupt behavior,” said Castro. “It’s absolutely unacceptable that a sitting U.S. Secretary of State, America’s top diplomat, would use official taxpayer-funded business to participate in a political party convention, particularly after the State Department published guidance that explicitly prohibits such activity.”Sources told CNN that White House, State Department, RNC and Pompeo’s personal lawyers all signed off on the speech. CNN also reported that the State Department claimed that no taxpayer funds were used by Pompeo to deliver the speech.While there are concerns that having Trump administration officials participate in political activities is toeing what’s legal under federal law, it is certainly unprecedented. There has not been an active secretary of state in recent times who has held a speaking role at a political convention.ABC News reported that then Secretary of State Colin Powell would not participate in the 2004 Republican National Convention due to ethics concerns.“As secretary of state, I am obliged not to participate in any way, shape, fashion, or form in parochial, political debates. I have to take no sides in the matter," Powell said, according to ABC News. 2492

President Donald Trump's immigration agenda was dealt another blow by federal courts Friday, when a federal judge largely blocked the Justice Department's efforts to punish sanctuary cities for a second time this year.US District Court Judge Harry D. Leinenweber agreed with the city of Chicago that the administration's new requirements for receiving a key law enforcement grant that hinged on immigration enforcement could cause "irreparable harm," adding that the city had shown a "likelihood of success" in its case that Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority in requiring local jurisdictions to comply with the new standards.Leinenweber blocked the Justice Department from enforcing the new measures, which it introduced earlier this summer, meaning cities applying for the funds this year will not have to comply."The harm to the city's relationship with the immigrant community, if it should accede to the conditions, is irreparable," Leinenweber wrote. "Once such trust is lost, it cannot be repaired through an award of money damages."Friday's decision marked the second time this year a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's efforts to force sanctuary cities to cooperate on immigration enforcement. A judge in San Francisco restricted a January executive order from Trump that threatened to block all federal funds to sanctuary cities -- a catchall term generally used to describe jurisdictions that have some policy of noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement.The administration has made such jurisdictions a key focus of its immigration agenda -- arguing that such policies are a public safety threat."By protecting criminals from immigration enforcement, cities and states with 'so-called' sanctuary policies make their communities less safe and undermine the rule of law," Justice Department spokesperson Devin O'Malley said. "The Department of Justice will continue to fully enforce existing law and to defend lawful and reasonable grant conditions that seek to protect communities and law enforcement."In a tweet, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel heralded the judge's ruling as a victory."This is not just a victory for Chicago. This is a win for cities across the US that supported our lawsuit vs Trump DOJ defending our values," Emanuel tweeted.At issue in the case was a new salvo the administration opened against sanctuary cities in July, when Sessions announced that going forward, funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or Byrne JAG, would be conditioned upon two new requirements: allowing federal immigration authorities access to local detention facilities and providing the Department of Homeland Security at least 48 hours' advance notice before local officials release an undocumented immigrant wanted by federal authorities.Those are some of the most controversial requests by the federal government regarding local law enforcement. A number of cities and police chiefs around the country argue that cooperating with such requests could jeopardize the trust police need to have with local communities, and in some cases could place departments in legal gray areas. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has accused sanctuary cities of putting politics over public safety.Leinenweber temporarily blocked both requirements on a nationwide basis Friday, explaining that the federal government does not have the authority to place new immigration-related conditions on the grants, as Congress did not grant that authority in setting up the program.Emanuel sued Sessions over the new requirements in August, saying they would "federalize local jails and police stations, mandate warrantless detentions in order to investigate for federal civil infractions, sow fear in local immigrant communities, and ultimately make the people of Chicago less safe."The conditions in July came after a federal judge in April restricted a January executive order that sought to block federal funds going to sanctuary cities to the JAG grants exclusively and existing requirements on them. After the administration failed in its attempt to get that injunction lifted, Sessions announced the new measures.The Justice Department did get one win, however. Leinenweber did side with the Trump administration on preserving an existing requirement for the grants -- certifying compliance with a federal law that mandates local jurisdictions communicate immigration status information to the federal government -- which was put in place originally by the Obama administration.Virtually all jurisdictions in the US say they are already in compliance with that measure.The-CNN-Wire 4664

来源：资阳报