I haven't watched the video, but here's text description I was working from...
According to the House Oversight Committee, the fracture Castillo claimed he suffered didn't show up in X-rays taken at the time of his supposed injury. And Castillo doesn't even remember how he got injured in the first place.
That was more than enough for Castillo to earn the ire of decorated war hero [Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois], who lost both her legs and the use of her right arm while serving as a helicopter pilot in Iraq.
But what really pushed her over the edge was a letter sent by Castillo to the VA as part of his efforts to secure government contracts.
"These are crosses that I bear due to my service to our great country and I would do it again to protect this great country," Castillo wrote.
"Iím so glad that you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this great country," Duckworth responded. "Shame on you, Mr. Castillo. Shame on you. You may not have broken any laws Ö but you certainly broke the trust of this great nation. You broke the trust of veterans. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans right now are waiting an average of 237 days for an initial disability rating. It is because people like you who are gaming the system are adding to that backlog that young men and women who are suffering from post-traumatic stress, who are missing limbs cannot get the compensation and the help that they need."
Detroit needs a game changer. The 982 acre island of Belle Isle can be that game changer for Detroit. The book Belle Isle is about that vision.
The setting is Belle Isle, 30 years in the future. Twenty nine years prior (2014), Belle Isle was sold by the city of Detroit for $1 billion dollars to a group of investors who believed in individual freedom, liberty and free markets.
They formed their own city-state, with innovative systems of government, taxation, labor and money. People soon came from all over the world to be part of this culture of unlimited opportunity. Belle Isle became the “Midwest Tiger,” rivaling Singapore as an economic miracle. Although numbering only 35,000 citizens, it generated billions of dollars in desperately needed economic growth and became a social laboratory for the western world.
Credit Cards > Credit Card News > New law bans card payment allocation trickery
New law bans card payment allocation trickery
Until then, use these strategies to cut down debt
By Amy Buttell Crane
If you use your credit cards for balance transfers or cash advances in addition to making purchases, your credit card payments will soon go further, starting in February 2010.
A single credit card can have multiple balances and interest rates -- one rate for purchases, another for balance transfers, yet another for cash advances -- and currently, the credit card company allocates payments as it sees fit. Not surprisingly, credit card companies allocate payments in the most profitable fashion, applying payments first to the balance with the lowest interest rate. That practice lets the high-rate balances linger longer, accumulating interest charges.
Federal law changes payment allocation
That's about to change. A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card. That requirement takes effect Feb. 22, 2010.
This means that, provided you pay more than the minimum payment, you'll be able to pay off your higher interest rate balances faster, lowering your interest payments and paying off your entire bill faster. For example, transferring a balance to a card with low or zero percent interest introductory rate will make more sense under the new rules because your payments will go to pay off higher rate balances rather than the lower or zero rate balances that they went to in the past.
"This will do a lot to help consumers," says Lauren Zeichner Bowne, a staff attorney with Consumers Union, a nonprofit consumer rights advocacy group. "Consumers will be able to really take advantage of promotional rates and manage their finances better because their payments, outside of the minimum payment, will go to their higher rate balances."
So, did these laws ever go into effect? Every month for the past six months (at least), I have had to call a company (big retailer...maybe you could guess it) to have them reverse interest charges that have been assessed because they have improperly (illegally?) allocated funds. I bought some stuff with deferred interest for 12 months deal, but also make miscellaneous purchases on the credit card for everyday items. Every single month, I try to pay off the revolving balance in full + the minimum payment on the deferred interest balance, and every single month, without fail, the entire payment is allocated to the deferred interest balance and an interest charge is assessed to the revolving balance.
Is there a loop hole that they can say "well the deferred interest is really a 30% rate if you exceed 12 months while the revolving is only 24%, so we're applying the full payment to the deferred balance" ?
A former top Energy Department official has taken a position on the board of a company that received millions in taxpayer money from the department through a stimulus program that has come under criticism from Congress and independent watchdogs.
Hurlbut marks a high profile addition to a roster of political connections that helped ECOtality secure more than $100 million in taxpayer financing for its electric vehicle charging stations.
ECOtality secured a $99.8 million award in 2009 to install nearly 15,000 electric vehicle chargers throughout the country. The contract was integral to the president's stated goal of getting a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.