阜阳市中医治灰指甲的医院阜阳治疗痘印好的中医院,阜阳什么医院看荨麻疹好,在阜阳太榆路那边的皮肤科医院,阜阳哪间医院看皮肤好的,阜阳哪家医院检查皮肤瘙痒好,治疗湿疹到好的医院阜阳,阜阳痘痘医院在线

Sheriffs in at least eight counties in Texas have said that they will not fine or cite those who violate Gov. Greg Abbott's executive order that requires Texans to wear masks in public.According to The Washington Post, sheriffs in Denton, Nacogdoches, Smith, Upshur, Kerr, Gillespie, Panola and Montgomery Counties have already said they cannot — or will not — enforce the order. CBS News also included Houston County in a list of countries not requiring masks.Abbott — who previously blocked cities and countries from instituting orders requiring masks — signed the executive order last week. It says those who repeatedly violate the order could face a citation and a fine of up to 0, but adds that violators cannot be detained or jailed.The Post reports that the sheriffs object to enforcing the order for a number of reasons. Some said that they could not enforce the order because stopping a person on the street constituted "detaining" them. Other sheriffs said the citing violators was discriminatory because the order includes exemptions for those attending religious services. Still others say they lack the resources to track repeat offenders properly.In a lengthy Facebook post, Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphee took issue with the order because it was not passed by the Texas legislature."The order is not a law, there is no requirement that any police officer enforce it, and it's unenforceable," Murphee said. "We can't spend our time running from place to place for calls about mask we can really do nothing about. Like I said I will comply because I want to comply. I won't and I don't believe I can take any enforcement action on this order."After Murphee announced his opposition to enforcing the order, a Denton County resident launched a Change.org petition calling for his removal. The petition has received nearly 5,000 signatures.Abbott's order says his order does not apply in counties with less than 20 confirmed COVID-19 cases. Some sheriffs in rural counties have said they will not enforce the order if they reach that threshold. 2070

Some presidential campaign promises are guaranteed to affect the lives and finances of everyday Americans. Banking industry reforms may not seem like one of them.After all, banking regulations can appear to be pretty remote from your day-to-day financial transactions. You may be surprised to learn that bank reforms implemented by past presidents and their cabinets have had material impacts on regular folks, and there’s no reason to believe that any regulatory changes brought about by a second Trump term or a Biden presidency would be any different.Here’s what you need to know about how presidential politics have affected your bank accounts in the past, and how the outcome of the 2020 election could affect your banking experience in the future.Historical Banking Changes That Continue to Affect ConsumersPresidential administrations of the past have implemented a number of different banking regulations and rule changes that continue to impact the consumer experience in 2020. It’s important to remember that the following banking changes were decided, in part, by the voters’ choosing the president who implemented the changes.Creation of the Federal ReserveInaugurated in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed The Federal Reserve Act into law later that same year. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, banks could not count on any emergency reserves if customers all withdrew their funds at once.Such panic withdrawals were relatively common in response to widespread financial crises. The country plunged into a depression in 1907 after a big panic run on the banks led to the failure of several institutions.The Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System as the U.S. central bank, which not only serves as a lender of last resort to commercial banks that would otherwise go under during an economic crisis, but also supervises and regulates banks to provide a level of safety and soundness. The Fed also sets monetary policy to help ensure full employment and price stability.We’re still feeling the effects of Wilson’s policy every day. Due to the stability offered by the Federal Reserve, only two banks have failed in 2020, despite this year’s pandemic-related economic troubles. Compare this to the more than 600 bank failures per year between 1921 and 1929, prior to the Great Depression.Even more importantly, the Fed sets the federal funds rate, which is the benchmark interest rate for the entire U.S. economy. (It’s also the amount of interest banks charge each other for loaning money overnight to maintain their reserve requirements.) The federal funds rate is currently set at 0% to 0.25%.Financial institutions use the federal funds rate to set the interest rates they offer on interest-bearing accounts, such as savings accounts, CDs and money market accounts. When rates on these accounts are raised or lowered, it’s in part because of how the Fed has set the federal funds rate.The federal funds rate also may affect the rates financial institutions charge on loans, such as mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and the like. However, individual credit history and other factors also can affect these rates.Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933 into law within his first 100 days of taking office. This legislation, which is often referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act after its sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D-Al.), set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), among other provisions.The FDIC insures deposits at an individual bank for up to 0,000 per depositor, for each account ownership category. If your bank were to fail, the FDIC ensures that you would not lose your deposits, up to the applicable limits. As the FDIC proudly states on its website, “No depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933.”Few people spend much time thinking about FDIC deposit insurance, but it has had a stabilizing effect on consumer behavior. Prior to the passage of Glass-Steagall, banking customers did not feel confident that their money was safe in the bank, and so they would withdraw their deposits when concerned about an economic downturn.In fact, a rumor that Roosevelt would devalue the dollar caused panic and mass withdrawals in January and February of 1933, leading to the failure of 4,000 banks by the time his March inauguration arrived. Such panicked withdrawals feel unthinkable in 2020 because of the assurance provided by the FDIC coverage.Federal (and many state-chartered) credit unions enjoy similar protection through the National Credit Union Administration, or NCUA.Regulation CCIn 1987, under Ronald Reagan’s administration, Congress passed the Expedited Funds Availability Act to establish the maximum length of holds that banking institutions can place on deposits by their customers.This federal law established Regulation CC, which sets specific rules as to when various types of deposits will be made available to banking customers and provides guidelines to financial institutions for how to disclose their funds availability policies to their customers.Regulation CC specifies that banks can hold their customers’ deposits for a “reasonable” amount of time. The definition of reasonable depends partially on the size of the deposit and the origin of the funds. Still, checks written from an account within the same bank may be held up to two business days, while checks drawn on other banks may be held up to five business days.Banks also may impose longer holds, but they have the burden of proving that the longer hold is necessary and reasonable.Prior to the implementation of Regulation CC, there was concern about the length of time that banks held onto their customers’ deposits before the money appeared in their accounts. With these regulations in place, customers know what to expect from their deposits, making it far easier to handle their cash flow.Proposed Banking Policies in the 2020 ElectionBoth President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden have proposed policies that could alter your banking habits. Here’s what to expect from each candidate’s proposed banking policies.Continued Deregulation Under Donald TrumpThroughout his first term, the incumbent has made bank deregulation a major part of his legislative agenda, with the rollback of some Dodd-Frank regulations in 2018 being his signature achievement in banking. Among other loosened rules, the Dodd-Frank rollback also raised the threshold under which banks are considered “too big to fail” from billion to 0 billion.While the president has not made his proposed banking policies a significant part of his reelection platform, he did propose major changes to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as of January 2020. The CRA is legislation that prevents banks from discriminating against low-income or under-represented borrowers.As of June 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) put the Trump administration’s proposals into effect. These proposals broaden the definition of what constitutes a bank and expand what types of loans offered to low-income borrowers qualify for improved CRA ratings.Specifically, it now includes credit cards and personal loans. In addition, the new rules give financial institutions credit for community reinvestment for loans for things like stadiums and hospitals. Should the president win his reelection bid, we can expect these new rules to take effect. (However, even if he wins and there is a change in leadership in the Senate, it is possible Democrats will work to reverse these rule changes.)The average bank customer may not notice the changes to the CRA on a day-to-day basis. However, lower-income borrowers may find it more difficult to qualify for a mortgage once these rules take effect.Updates to Older Legislation Under Joe BidenThe former vice president has plans to spruce up several pieces of old banking legislation. The specific items on his agenda include actions to:“Strengthen and enforce” the Dodd-Frank Act to help ensure equal access to banking. He specifically plans to back criminal penalties for reckless actions by bank executives.Protect consumers from predatory lending practices. Biden plans to strengthen consumer lending oversight, enforce remedies for abusive lending practices and pursue legislation to prevent predatory lending.Expand the CRA to include mortgage and insurance companies.Presuming it can enact all the plans it promises, a Biden presidency may provide banking customers with more reassurance that banks will handle their finances with care. Consumers may pay less for their personal loans, credit cards and mortgages if Biden is successful in ending predatory lending practices and if he is able to expand the CRA, thereby improving access to credit for under-represented communities.These rule changes also may place more of a regulatory burden on financial institutions, which could have ripple effects on banking customers. For instance, some consumers with a poor credit history may find that they cannot qualify for loans under a Biden-led crackdown on usurious interest rates, although they did previously qualify for loans that are now considered predatory.Election Costs and ConsequencesPolicy changes from our government’s executive branch can have enormous consequences for the banking industry and the consumers who rely on that industry. Although it may feel as if voting in a presidential election has little to do with how you bank, your vote can help to set policies that will affect banking consumers like yourself for decades to come.Protecting your own and your fellow Americans’ financial health is yet another reason why voting is so important. 9828

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Scientists removed 98 so-called “murder hornets” from a nest discovered near the Canadian border in Washington state over the weekend, including 13 that were captured live in a net.The state Department of Agriculture said Monday it suspects there might be more Asian giant hornet nests in Washington and will continue efforts to eradicate them.The agency says 85 Asian giant hornets were vacuumed into a special container when the first nest discovered on U.S. soil was eradicated on Saturday.The hornets were located in a tree, about 10 feet off the ground. To get to them, a team in protective suits set up scaffolding and stuffed dense foam padding into a crevice above and below the nest entrance before wrapping the tree with cellophane, leaving a single opening.That’s where the team inserted the vacuum hose and removed the hornets.When the hornets stopped coming out of the nest, the team pumped carbon dioxide into the tree to kill or anaesthetize any remaining hornets. They then sealed the tree with spray foam, wrapped it again with cellophane, and finally placed traps nearby to catch any potential survivors or hornets who may have been away during the operation and return to the tree.“The eradication went very smoothly, even though our original plan had to be adapted due to the fact that the nest was in a tree, rather than the ground,” managing entomologist Sven Spichiger said. “While this is certainly a morale boost, this is only the start of our work to hopefully prevent the Asian giant hornet from gaining a foothold in the Pacific Northwest.”In the coming week, officials intend to cut the tree down and open it to see how big the nest was. Entomologists also want to determine whether the nest had begun to produce new queens or not.While the hornets have been known to kill people in Asia, officials in the United States are primarily concerned they will destroy honeybee populations that are needed to pollinate crops.The hornets are the largest in the world and officials say a small group of them can kill an entire honeybee hive in a matter of hours. 2112

SORRENTO VALLEY, Calif. (KGTV) - Another San Diego-based company is moving forward on developing a vaccine for the coronavirus. Sorrento Therapeutics is working on several projects that they believe could lead to viable vaccines or treatments. One of them was announced on Monday. Sorrento Therapeutics said it was partnering with Boston-based Smartpharm to create a gene-encoded antibody vaccine. “In the effort to more quickly resolve the global COVID-19 crisis, our company has initiated a rapidly accelerated program for the identification of potent neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus antigens that may be used for either treatment or prophylaxis,” said Henry Ji, CEO of Sorrento Therapeutics. Sorrento Therapeutics is also working on another vaccine called the I-Cell project. That vaccine uses a decoy virus to activate a person’s immune system to train it to attack the real virus. It’s also developing a protein called COVIDTRAP that can bind to the receptors on the coronavirus, thus blocking it from being able to bind to the receptors on healthy human cells. If proven succesful, it could be used as a treatment or preventative measure.How long will it take for them to be ready?“That all depends on what leeway the FDA gives us,” said Mark Brunswick, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Sorrento Therapeutics. If they can get fast tracked, he estimates they can start clinical trials in 2 months, as opposed to 9-12 months normally. 1483

SPRING HILL, Fla. -- A Florida mother was arrested on Wednesday after deputies say she left her 3-year-old son home alone while she went out drinking. Hernando County deputies responded a home in Spring Hill after receiving a tip that a child was at the home without supervision. Deputies attempted to contact the 3-year-old boy around 2 a.m. on Wednesday. When deputies arrived they saw Kristen Broker, 27, being dropped off at the home. The deputy asked Broker if she knew the child. Broker told the deputy that he was her son. The deputy then asked if she knew whether or not the child was in the home alone.Deputies say that Broker told them that she knew the child was home alone. She told them that he was sleeping inside.Deputies found the young boy awake inside the home. He was in a queen sized bed with no guardrails, according to HCSO. "[The boy] appeared to be scared as to where his mother was," HCSO wrote in a press release.Deputies say that the only other adult who lives at the home was Broker's boyfriend, who was at work.Broker told deputies that she was at a local bar. Deputies say she appeared to be extremely intoxicated. She told deputies that she had been drinking since 1 p.m. on Tuesday, according to HCSO.Broker said she had consumed some rum and cokes and some beers, according to HCSO. Deputies say that she claimed she was only gone for "30 minutes," and that her son was asleep when she left.The child was clearly awake when deputies arrived at the home.Deputies say that Broker appeared almostBroker didn't appear to think it was an issue to leave her child home for any amount of time, according to the arrest affidavit.Broker was arrested on one count of child neglect, booked into the Hernando County Jail under a ,000 bond. The child was turned over to the father's care.Mary Stringini is a digital reporter for ABC Action News. Follow her on Twitter @MaryWFTS. 1983