徐州孩子在哪生出来徐州怀孕20周是几个月,徐州孕妇多少周做4d彩超,徐州四维主要检查什么,徐州四维彩超几个月去查,徐州胃镜医院哪个医院好,徐州做糖耐需要多少钱,徐州21周5天可以做四维吗

In a crisis, long-term planning may lose out to quick and dirty solutions — regardless of the consequences.As the pandemic and its economic fallout continues, more cash-strapped consumers could fall into this trap if the Great Recession is any indicator.A recent report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that from 2007 through 2010, debt settlements — which can be financially risky — increased. Meanwhile, credit counseling, a debt relief option that keeps consumers in good standing with their creditors, declined.Before you hit a moment of crisis decision-making, understand how to think through debt relief options.Why debt settlement isn’t all it’s marketed to beYou’ve probably heard the radio ads or maybe received a robocall promising a solution to your debt that can cut what you owe by 50% or more.Debt settlement claims are as lofty as the industry’s marketing budget. But these programs aren’t all they’re hyped up to be — and the ads gloss over the downsides.With debt settlement, you stop making payments to creditors and instead direct your money to the debt settlement company, which holds it in an escrow account. Then, typically after several months, the company contacts your creditors and haggles to cut a deal where the creditor accepts less than originally owed. This period of waiting between when you stop paying creditors and the debt is settled (which isn’t guaranteed) is where things can go awry.“There’s no free lunch,” says Glenn Downing, a Miami certified financial planner. “There really are some significant trade-offs with debt settlement. I’d try to make it a last resort.”Debt settlement risks include:Leaving yourself open to lawsuits: When you stop making payments to creditors and debts go delinquent, you can be sued by the original creditor or by a debt collector who purchases the debt. Until the debt is resolved, either through full payment, settlement or bankruptcy, you’re at risk of being sued.Owing a tax bill: The IRS considers any amount of debt settled as taxable income.Saving less than what was advertised: Debt settlement companies often take a fee of around 30% of your original debt balance. So even if you did settle for 50% of what you originally owed, you won’t come out as far ahead as you might expect after you pay the fee to the settlement company. Additionally, your debt can continue to grow when you stop making payments, as late fees and interest are added to your balance.Credit damage: Missing payments and defaulting on your debts are among the worst things you can do to your credit. These marks stay on your credit reports for around seven years and will make you look risky to future creditors, which can result in you not being approved for credit or having to pay higher interest rates.A better choice for long-term financial healthWhat if there was a way to roll multiple credit card payments into one, at a lower interest rate — while preserving your good standing with your creditors?That’s what nonprofit credit counseling agencies offer. These organizations have arrangements with many credit card companies that provide a lower interest rate in exchange for regular monthly payments over three to five years to resolve your debt.But many consumers aren’t aware of these benefits, according to a 2018 Harris Poll survey commissioned by Money Management International, a nonprofit credit counseling agency. It found that 62% of the 2,012 respondents didn’t know credit counseling can roll multiple credit card debts into one payment. And 73% weren’t aware that credit counseling offers lower interest rates on credit card debt.There are some drawbacks if you use a credit counseling agency’s debt management plan. You typically need a regular income to qualify, and if you miss a payment, the agreement can be dissolved, leaving you to manage on your own.But for the long-term health of your credit profile, credit counseling is the clear winner. This debt relief tool generally keeps consumers in good standing with creditors since they’re making good on their obligations. The only harm to their credit profile would come from closing credit accounts, which some agencies require.To find a reputable nonprofit credit counseling agency, look for one that has been certified by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling or the Financial Counseling Association of America.Know when a third option might be bestBefore choosing debt settlement or credit counseling, consider whether:You’re barely able to make regular debt payments.Your monthly debt payments — excluding student loans and housing costs — exceed 40% of your take-home pay.Your debt burden is interfering with your quality of life, for instance keeping you up at night.If so, you might want to consider bankruptcy. Although it’s been stigmatized, this debt relief tool can resolve what you owe faster than credit counseling or debt settlement. In addition, credit scores can start to rebound quickly in the months after filing.This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by The Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow Credit Counseling Can Help YouDebt Settlement: How It Works and Risks You FaceWhen Bankruptcy Is the Best OptionSean Pyles is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: spyles@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @SeanPyles. 5312

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference regarding the extension of increased unemployment benefits on Friday, hours before those benefits are set to expire.As part of the CARES Act, a coronavirus stimulus bill passed by Congress in March, federal unemployment benefits were increased by 0 a week. At the time, lawmakers thought it was a necessary move as millions lost their jobs amid lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus.However, those benefits are set to expire this weekend. And with the unemployment rate still in double digits and the virus spreading at its highest levels yet, Democrats say increased unemployment benefits should be extended.On Thursday, reports emerged that Republicans were considering extending unemployment benefits, only at a level of about 0 a week. GOP lawmakers are expected to unveil their plan for another round of coronavirus stimulus next week.Pelosi slammed the Republicans' delay in her press conference Friday, calling it a "dereliction" of their duty. She asked that Republicans "get something on paper" so that Democrats and the American people could see their plan.House Democrats passed the HEROES Act in May — a trillion bill that would extend the 0 unemployment benefits through the end of the year. It would also extend those benefits to gig workers, independent contractors, and other self-employed people.Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, called on Congress to keep up the "momentum" of the CARES Act by adopting the HEROES Act.Republicans argue that extending the benefits is too expensive and that the ,400 payments encourage people not to seek unemployment. However, Rep. Danny Davis, D-Illinois, argued that the benefits were needed because COVID-19 made it too dangerous for some to work, made others unable to work due to lost jobs, and made childcare more difficult due to the closure of schools. 1893

If you own a 2018 or 2019 Jeep Wrangler, get ready for a recall. According to documents posted to the JL Wrangler Forum, Fiat-Chrysler will soon be launching a recall that covers “certain” 2018-19 Wranglers because a faulty weld in the frame can cause a sudden crash.More specifically, the documents state some of the vehicles may have been built “with a front bar bracket weld located off the seam potentially resulting in the bracket separating from the frame.” If that happens, there may be a reduction in steering response, resulting in a crash without warning.At the time of this story, car owners had not yet been notified and the recall hasn’t been made official on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website, but the posted documents show dealerships are aware of the impending recall. Some of the vehicles involved in the recall have actually not even been sold yet, so dealerships are being told to withhold sales.  991

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a last-ditch Republican effort to invalidate nearly 127,000 votes in Houston. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling Monday concerned ballots cast at drive-thru polling centers that were established during the pandemic. The judge's decision to hear arguments on the brink of Election Day drew concern from voting rights activists, and came after the Texas Supreme Court rejected a nearly identical challenge over the weekend.The lawsuit was brought by conservative Texas activists who have railed against expanded voting access in Harris County. Hanen said the opponents to drive-thru centers — who were represented by former Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill— had no standing to bring a lawsuit. He added that people had already voted and that conservative activists had months to bring a challenge sooner.But Hanen still expressed doubts about whether Texas law allowed anyone to vote from their car, even in a pandemic.“If I were voting tomorrow, I would not vote in a drive-thru just out of my concern as to whether that’s legal or not,” Hanen said.Another 20,000 or more voters were expected to use drive-thru polling locations Tuesday, said Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, the county’s top elections official. Several voters who already used the drive-thru centers rushed to join mounting opposition to the lawsuit, including a Houston attorney whose wife was 35 weeks pregnant when she cast her ballot. She gave birth to twins Friday.The county is the nation’s third largest and a crucial battleground in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Republicans are bracing for the closest election in decades on Tuesday. 1689

In a sharp turn of events, a San Francisco judge denied Monsanto's request to nix a 0 million award to a man who said he got terminal cancer from Roundup weedkiller.But she's also slashing that man's punitive award down to about million.Former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson was the first cancer patient to take Monsanto to trial, claiming Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.Jurors sided with Johnson and awarded him 0 million in punitive damages (to punish Monsanto) and about million in compensatory damages (for Johnson's lost income, pain and suffering).The jury's verdict came in August. But on October 10, the tide appeared to turn in Monsanto's favor.That's when Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos issued a tentative ruling granting Monsanto's request for a JNOV -- a judgment notwithstanding verdict. That's basically when a judge in a civil case overrules the jury's decision.Bolanos said the plaintiff "presented no clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression to support an award of punitive damages." In other words, Johnson's entire 0 million punitive award was in jeopardy.The judge gave attorneys on both sides a few days to respond and further make their cases.When she issued her final ruling Monday, Bolanos reversed her tentative ruling and denied Monsanto's request for a JNOV.But it wasn't a complete victory for Johnson. Instead of 9 million in combined damage awards, Johnson is slated to get a total of about million.Bolanos said the punitive award was too high and needed to match Johnson's million compensatory award."In enforcing due process limits, the court does not sit as a replacement for the jury but only as a check on arbitrary awards," Bolanos wrote in her ruling Monday."The punitive damages award must be constitutionally reduced to the maximum allowed by due process in this case -- ,253,209.35 -- equal to the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury based on its findings of harm to the plaintiff."Monsanto had also requested a new trial on the punitive damages. The judge said that request will be denied if Johnson accepts the smaller punitive award. If he does not accept the million punitive award, then a new trial would be set.The 1 million plummet in Johnson's punitive award caught some legal experts by surprise, including University of Richmond?law professor Carl Tobias."I am somewhat surprised, but the punitive damage award was high even though the (percentage of) reduction was steep," Tobias said. "No one thought the plaintiff would retain the whole (punitive damages) award." 2626