濮阳东方医院妇科做人流手术值得放心濮阳东方医院治早泄正规吗,濮阳东方医院看早泄技术很靠谱,濮阳东方医院妇科收费不高,濮阳市东方医院专业吗,濮阳东方医院做人流手术好不好,濮阳东方医院男科看早泄咨询电话,濮阳东方医院男科看早泄很便宜

The cost of education can last a lifetime, as many people into their 50s and 60s are finding out.According to Federal Reserve, 2.8 million people in the U.S. over the age of 60 are sitting on some amount of student debt, a number that quadrupled from 700,000 in 2005 and continues to grow.“This is really a sledgehammer against the older generation in more ways than one,” says Alan Collinge, creator of online advocacy group for borrowers Student Loan Justice.Collinge has been campaigning for change surrounding laws for student loans since 2005, after trying to figure out a way to pay off his own crippling college costs.“It’s a really devastating phenomenon, and I’m seeing it destroy, literally wreck, families across the country,” Collinge says. In 2018, Americans over the age of 50 owed more than 0 billion in student loans, up from billion in 2004, according to the Federal Reserve.And most can’t afford to pay, forcing retirees to continue to work well past retirement age.“The problem has become exponentially worse since we began this fight 13 years ago,” he says.In Collinge’s group, he hears stories from people ages 18 to 80 years old, who can hardly afford to live, let alone retire.“The federal government can and does garnish Social Security from seniors as a result of their student loans, so we’re hearing stories from people who at the end of the month they’re unable to buy medicine even unable to pay their rent,” Collinge says, “What kind of country does this to their senior people?”On top of that, Collinge says more people in their 50s and 60s are taking out Parent Plus loans to help their children and grandchildren pay for college, which adds to the financial burden.“This is a nationally threatening phenomenon,” he said. Through his advocacy group, he tries to offer help and resources to folks who are struggling. He’s currently on a road tour talking to legislators around the country, encouraging them to reform borrower laws, expand their rights and get colleges to crack down on sky-high tuition costs.“Student loans are the only loans in the country not subject to bankruptcy, why is that? The numbers are just getting so astonishing now, I can only hope that the new Congress puts this issue front and center and doesn’t get distracted by the palace intrigue because this is a problem affecting real people it just won’t wait any longer.” 2413

The CIA has determined that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, despite the Saudi government's denials that the de facto ruler was involved, according to a Washington Post report.Citing people familiar with the matter, the Post reported Friday that the CIA reached its conclusion by examining several sources of intelligence. According to the Post, US officials have high confidence in the CIA's assessment.A spokesman for the CIA declined to comment to the Post. The Saudi government has denied bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's death.Fatimah Baeshen, a spokeswoman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington, told the newspaper that the claims in the CIA's "purported assessment are false.""We have and continue to hear various theories without seeing the primary basis for these speculations," she told the Post.Khashoggi, a former Saudi royal insider who became a critic of the country's government, went missing in October after he visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain papers for his upcoming marriage. The Saudi government offered changing explanations for Khashoggi's disappearance.Included in the US intelligence analyzed by the CIA was a phone call the prince's brother Khalid bin Salman made to Khashoggi, encouraging the journalist to make the trip to the consulate to get the documents, according to the Post. Sources told the Post that Khalid made the call at his brother's command.Khalid denied the Post's reporting, saying on Twitter that he had never spoken to Khashoggi by phone."I never talked to him by phone and certainly never suggested he go to Turkey for any reason. I ask the US government to release any information regarding this claim," Khalid said.He said the last contact he'd had with Khashoggi was via text in October 2017.Baeshen told the Post that Khalid, who is the Saudi ambassador to the US, and Khashoggi never discussed "anything related to going to Turkey."The CIA also examined an audio recording from inside the Saudi consulate provided by Turkey and a phone call placed from inside the consulate after Khashoggi was killed, according to the Post.Maher Mutreb, an alleged member of the Saudi hit team and a security official for the crown prince, placed the phone call to a top aide for bin Salman informing the aide that the job had been done, people familiar with the call told the newspaper.According to the Post, the CIA also based its conclusion on its evaluation of bin Salman as a leader who is involved in minor matters.The CIA does not know the location of Khashoggi's remains, according to the Post.The Trump administration on Thursday?imposed penalties on 17 individuals over their alleged roles in the killing of Khashoggi. Khashoggi's assassination has created a crisis for the Trump administration and drawn attention to President Donald Trump's business ties to Saudi Arabia and the relationship between bin Salman and Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.Earlier Thursday, the Saudi Public Prosecutor's Office said 11 people had been charged for their involvement in the death of Khashoggi, adding that five are facing capital punishment for being directly involved in "ordering and executing the crime."Khashoggi was killed following "a fight and a quarrel" at the Saudi consulate, the prosecutor's office claimed. Prosecutors said Khashoggi was tied up and injected with an overdose of a sedative that killed him. Then, according to prosecutors, his body was dismembered and removed from the consulate by five people. 3617

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are facing a grilling by Republican senators making unfounded allegations that the tech giants show anti-conservative bias.The Senate Commerce Committee has summoned Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai to testify for a hearing Wednesday. The executives agreed to appear remotely after being threatened with subpoenas.With the presidential election looming, Republicans led by President Donald Trump have thrown a barrage of grievances at Big Tech’s social media platforms, which they accuse without evidence of deliberately suppressing conservative, religious and anti-abortion views.The chorus of protest rose this month after Facebook and Twitter acted to limit dissemination of an unverified political story from the conservative-leaning New York Post about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, an unprecedented action against a major media outlet. The story, which was not confirmed by other publications, cited unverified emails from Biden’s son Hunter that were reportedly disclosed by Trump allies.Beyond questioning the CEOs, senators are expected to examine proposals to revise long-held legal protections for online speech, an immunity that critics in both parties say enables the companies to abdicate their responsibility to impartially moderate content.The Justice Department has asked Congress to strip some of the bedrock protections that have generally shielded the tech companies from legal responsibility for what people post on their platforms. Trump signed an executive order challenging the protections from lawsuits under the 1996 telecommunications law.“For too long, social media platforms have hidden behind Section 230 protections to censor content that deviates from their beliefs,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Commerce Committee chairman, said recently.In their opening statements prepared for the hearing, Dorsey, Zuckerberg and Pichai addressed the proposals for changes to so-called Section 230, a provision of a 1996 law that has served as the foundation for unfettered speech on the internet. Zuckerberg said Congress “should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended.”“We don’t think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone,” he said, approving an active role for government regulators.Dorsey and Pichai, however, urged caution in making any changes. “Undermining Section 230 will result in far more removal of online speech and impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmful content and protect people online,” Dorsey said.Pichai urged lawmakers “to be very thoughtful about any changes to Section 230 and to be very aware of the consequences those changes might have on businesses and consumers.”Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told congressional leaders in a letter Tuesday that recent events have made the changes more urgent. He cited the action by Twitter and Facebook regarding the New York Post story, calling the companies’ limitations “quite concerning.”The head of the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency, recently announced plans to reexamine the legal protections, potentially putting meat on the bones of Trump’s order by opening the way to new rules. The move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, marked an about-face from the agency’s previous position.Social media giants are also under heavy scrutiny for their efforts to police misinformation about the election. Twitter and Facebook have slapped a misinformation label on content from the president, who has around 80 million followers. Trump has raised the baseless prospect of mass fraud in the vote-by-mail process.Starting Tuesday, Facebook was not accepting any new political advertising. Previously booked political ads will be able to run until the polls close next Tuesday, when all political advertising will temporarily be banned. Google, which owns YouTube, also is halting political ads after the polls close. Twitter banned all political ads last year.Democrats have focused their criticism of social media mainly on hate speech, misinformation and other content that can incite violence or keep people from voting. They have criticized Big Tech CEOs for failing to police content, homing in on the platforms’ role in hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism in the U.S.Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have scrambled to stem the tide of material that incites violence and spreads lies and baseless conspiracy theories.The companies reject accusations of bias but have wrestled with how strongly they should intervene. They have often gone out of their way not to appear biased against conservative views — a posture that some say effectively tilts them toward those viewpoints. The effort has been especially strained for Facebook, which was caught off-guard in 2016, when it was used as a conduit by Russian agents to spread misinformation benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign.The unwelcome attention to the three companies piles onto the anxieties in the tech industry, which also faces scrutiny from the Justice Department, federal regulators, Congress and state attorneys general around the country.Last week, the Justice Department sued Google for abusing its dominance in online search and advertising — the government’s most significant attempt to protect competition since its groundbreaking case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago.With antitrust in the spotlight, Facebook, Apple and Amazon also are under investigation at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.___Follow Gordon at https://twitter.com/mgordonap. 5687

The former chief administrative officer for the Department of Housing and Urban Development says she was demoted in part for refusing to spend more than was legally allowed to redecorate Secretary Ben Carson's new office.In a November 2017 complaint obtained by CNN, Helen Foster said she was told to "find money" beyond the legal ,000 limit for redecorating. In one instance, she says a supervisor said that ",000 will not even buy a decent chair."Foster's sworn complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, the independent agency charged with investigating whistleblower complaints made by government employees, says that after she refused to misuse taxpayer dollars for the office redecoration project she was "retaliated against by being taken out of my position as Chief Administrative Officer."She says that HUD's Acting Secretary Craig Clemmensen pulled her aside more than a month before Carson's March confirmation and told her that Carson's wife, Candy, wanted to "help the Secretary redecorate his office suite." Clemmensen asked Foster to assist with "getting Mrs. Carson access and funds for the project," the complaint states.Foster said she told Clemmensen that legally, the department was limited in how much it could spend on the office redecorating project to ,000, information she says she also passed along to the administrative officer in the Secretary's office. But even so, Foster said she received repeated pressure in multiple conversations to "find money" for the redecorating project in excess of what was legally allowed, including in a one-on-one meeting on February 10. Clemmensen, according to the complaint, told Foster that the administration "has always found money for this in the past."In an exclusive interview with CNN, Foster said each time Clemmensen pushed her to assist Carson's wife with finding the money, it was always "in the context of Mrs. Carson wants to do this. We have to find the money.""There was a sense of 'we are not going to take no for an answer.' There was a lot of staff time spent on this" a former HUD employee with knowledge of the situation told CNN."The most frustrating part of all this was spending so much time on this issue," the former employee said. "Instead of focusing on HUD's mission, we were talking about furniture for the Secretary's office.A HUD official disputed Foster's account."When it comes to decorating the Secretary's office, the only money HUD spent was ,200 to put up new blinds in his office and the Deputy Secretary's office,"HUD spokesman Raffi Williams told CNN. "The Secretary's Administrative officer is aware of the limit and ensured that the limit was not exceeded." HUD provided receipts to CNN that total ,373.Neither Candy Carson nor Clemmensen responded to a request for comment.On Tuesday, the liberal group American Oversight sued HUD in an attempt to find out how much taxpayer money Carson used to renovate or redecorate his office.American Oversight said that in November it submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for more than 20 agencies, including HUD, but that HUD did not respond to the information request.The latest allegations come as Carson is facing scrutiny for the role that his family has played in his department, after reports that his son, Ben Carson, Jr., organized an official listening tour in Baltimore last year against the advice of department lawyers that the move risked violating federal ethics rules. Carson has called on HUD's inspector general to review the issue. The IG's office calls it an "open matter." Carson has said that his family is "under attack" and that he wants to "put to rest these unfounded biases."Foster said she was so frustrated and concerned about the pressure she was under that she reached out to Sarah Lyberg, HUD's acting assistant chief financial officer for budget, on February 13. In the email which has been reviewed by CNN, she wrote that she had been asked about "finding additional money.""Is there any way Admin could appropriately spend additional funds over 00 to provide new furnishings or decorating for the Secretary's Office without getting appropriations approval," Foster asked Lyberg in the email.Lyberg responded: "We cannot exceed the cap."Further evidence that the issue continued to be a topic for discussion came On February 22, when the office of HUD's Chief Financial Officer sent a memo to Clemmensen and Janet Golrick, the department's acting deputy secretary, detailing the rules surrounding funds for decorating Carson's office.The memo, which was obtained by CNN, said that spending of more than ,000 "requires advance notice to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations." If the department failed to give that notice, it would violate the Antideficiency Act, which bars federal agencies from spending federal money before it has been appropriated by Congress.Securing the Secretary 4926

The California NAACP is urging "The Star-Spangled Banner" be removed as the national anthem, according to the Sacramento Bee. The NFL has been embroiled in a national controversy regarding players kneeling for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before games. President Donald Trump has weighed in multiple times condemning players as being disrespectful for kneeling for the anthem.  413