SSC wrote:Gee Mays thanks for the news flash as if our Tv's aren't already full of this crap.

Maybe some genius can enlighten us about the problems, like economy running in cycles.
The problems are conjunctural and not structtural etc.etc.
Luckily the dollar recovered from its all time low earlier today.
Now lets hope it s not a delay of executiion.

"Now lets hope it s not a delay of executiion.
Mays Gilliam" ... Aw, cut the crap Chicken Little. Admit the truth: You HATE the USA and pray for it's downfall. (One can presume so that the Dutch can force feed us cheese) The USA economic engine DRIVES THE WORLD ECONOIMY, dunderhead. Our currency will ALWAYS be tradeable and viable. Please, stop peddling nightmares to idiots and children.

meemoon wrote:"Now lets hope it s not a delay of executiion.
Mays Gilliam" ... Aw, cut the crap Chicken Little. Admit the truth: You HATE the USA and pray for it's downfall. (One can presume so that the Dutch can force feed us cheese) The USA economic engine DRIVES THE WORLD ECONOIMY, dunderhead. Our currency will ALWAYS be tradeable and viable. Please, stop peddling nightmares to idiots and children.

Thanks for your kind words, Meem
Lets pray your currency will remain tradeble, for it s downfall would have a negative effect on the whole world and we dont want innocent people to become victims, due to a financial crisis that started in the USA. We have already seen that in the 30ies of the previous century.
Oh, and btw the 30ies were worse than the 40ies, though you may have a different opinion on that.

Then allow me to say some kind words without rancor or invective. WE AGREE. Example: Oil sold at 40% higher than it did 6 months ago, in dollars. 13% more in euros. The USA has simply run outta gas. The Euro is becoming, if it has not already become, the currency of commerce. Bush's idiotic trillion dollar "guns and butter" program has failed. Serious efforts are being made to require speculators to put up 50% liquidity instead of just 10%. Blockages and limitations are in place, and have been in place since 1933. Will all these measures result in an American recession? Yes. Count on it. My brothjer is watching his retirement fund shrink. He has been officialy notified his predicted SSA check he will start receiving at age 65, will be less;significantly less. If you rejoice at the equalization of the American/European economies, my congratulations, It's about time. But beware my friend, China and India are the 600# Gorillas who are barging into the living room. India has proven reasonable, but China will stomp to death anyone who opposes them. Including you (Holland) You may, at some time actually need NATO. Peace

Democrats Are Weighing More Tax Rebates, Pelosi Says (Update3)

By Laura Litvan

July 15 -- Congressional Democrats are considering a second round of rebates to taxpayers, saying the benefits of the first checks sent to more than 100 million households this year are being eroded by rising energy prices.

``We will be proceeding with another stimulus package, and we once again hope we will work in a bipartisan way,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after House Democratic leaders met with a group of economists to discuss the spreading housing crisis and rising gas prices.

Pelosi and other House Democrats said that in addition to more rebates a second stimulus package would probably include additional spending for roads and other infrastructure, expanded unemployment benefits, home-heating assistance for low-income families and aid for states struggling with budget deficits.

N.J. Councilman Starts Crusade Against Saggy Pants
Paterson Politician Is Sick And Tired Of The Look And If He Has It His Way, Indecency Fines Will Soon Follow
Reporting
Christine Sloan PATERSON, N.J. (CBS) ― Instead of "stick 'em up," it will be more like "pull 'em up" now that fashion police in New Jersey have started a crackdown on baggy pants.

It's happening in Paterson, where city officials want to put the kibosh on this form of fashion.

Bart Johnson says wearing his pants low in a fashion statement, but one councilman is saying pull it up. He's even crafted a proposal to ban "baggy pants."

Teenagers and even little ones and women are sporting the fashion. The "saggy" or "baggy" look, where pants are pulled down and boxers are exposed seems to be all the rage these days.

Well, at least for some.

"I don't know. I'm not used to wearing my pants to my waist," college student LaToya Williams said.

Another young person quickly tried to justify the look to CBS 2 HD.

"My shirt's over it … it shows the nice belt interior," the boy boasted.

High school student Mikhail Josephs said the look is more than a fashion statement.

"When you sag your pants it can be either freedom of expression or rebellion," Josephs said.

Councilman Anthony Davis tells teenagers to pull it up every day, and soon he'll be introducing a proposal that would make walking around like this in Paterson subject to fine under the city's indecency law.

"We're tired of seeing your behind," Davis said. "We don't want to see your back side. We don't need to see your underwear. We don't need to see your drawers. Wear your pants."

Some teens we spoke to were all for "baggin'" the sagging look.

"Sometimes you don't have the cleanest underwear on," Rayshon Johnson said.

"It's disgusting," Lohina Uddin said. "[I think they are revealing] a little too much."

"I don't allow it," one parent added.

But others fear a dress code in an urban area could lead to profiling by police and that government shouldn't be telling people what to wear.

"We should be able to dress the way we want," Antoin Davis proclaimed.

Some say freedom to wear what they want and how they want is a long time coming.

"When I was growing up my mom didn't like what I wore," one woman said.

Cities have had a difficult time pushing through the baggy pants pans. In Irvington, N.J., a councilwoman recently had to pull her proposal after facing legal questions.

Every time I see those "crotch down to the knees" pants, I have two urges. The first being to pull those pants down to the ankles. OOPS! The second being to grab the back of their underwear hanging out and yank UP until the kid howls!

lol figi i think told tyler, my daughters father in law, is old school and does not put up with much, he was trading at a smaller grocery store, rather than walmart, but he said the boy that was sacking his groceries was sacking with one hand, and holding his pants up with the other one, he told the manager if he ever comes in there again and sees that, he will just do walmart,

Meemoon wrote:
My brother is watching his retirement fund shrink. He has been officialy notified his predicted SSA check he will start receiving at age 65, will be less;significantly less.
-----
A question to see if I understand this correctly.
A full retirement age used to be 65, but it shifts up to 67 or so now, so on 65 you dont receive full payment any more?
So far it s still 65 here, but today in the news they said the extra retirement funds will be frozen, due to losses in the stock markets.

"A full retirement age used to be 65, but it shifts up to 67 or so now, so on 65 you dont receive full payment any more?" ... Exactly correct. Let's face reality. You have "baby boomers" too. We already have plans in place that allow you to work (and contribute FICA deductions) until you are 72. We are hitting new walls every day.

meemoon wrote:"A full retirement age used to be 65, but it shifts up to 67 or so now, so on 65 you dont receive full payment any more?" ... Exactly correct. Let's face reality. You have "baby boomers" too. We already have plans in place that allow you to work (and contribute FICA deductions) until you are 72. We are hitting new walls every day.

We managed to lower the national debt with almost 50 per cent and the thought behind it was, that the intrest the gov.ment did not need to pay would be used for AOW (something like your SSA)
Yet some politicians talk about raising the retirement age to 67 instead of 65 now, but it means a kind of political suicide.
They try to sell us these fairy tales by saying, look at Germany - they are doing it already, but unlike in Germany the need is not present here yet, though we also are confronted with "baby boomers" of course.
If they alter the age, it will be after this baby boomer has already retired.
We don t have your system of choosing when you retire. It is 65 and that s it, but who knows what they come up with in the future.

meemoon wrote:"A full retirement age used to be 65, but it shifts up to 67 or so now, so on 65 you dont receive full payment any more?" ... Exactly correct. Let's face reality. You have "baby boomers" too. We already have plans in place that allow you to work (and contribute FICA deductions) until you are 72. We are hitting new walls every day.

,moon me and u are in the 66 year old group, which is the largest chunk , i will post the schedule at the end of this. we still can retire at 62 as before the change, but when u use to take the 62 age, u got 80 percent of what u would have got at 65, now since im in the 66 year old group, if i choose 62 i would get 75 percent of what i would get at age 66, one thing my boss is going through, even if ur in the 66 year old group, my boss is in the 66 year group and was told he could get medicare insurance, as before at age 65, of course 75 percent of ur social security at 62 years of age, the closer u come to 66 before u get on it, the larger the percentage u draw gets, i reada few days ago, if nothing changes, no more increase in tax or anything like that social security is solvent till the year 2041.. i will be dead, lol but of course, some things will have to change for younger pll. my neighbor i grew up with has a degree and works for the social security administration, and he told me long ago to take the 62 year old option of at that time 80 percent and now 75 percent, and he told me how long i would have to live to start loosing money takeing that 62 year old option.. and it was alot. in other words, the amount of money u draw from 62 years of age to 66 years of age, is a fair size chunk, and if u wait, and only live a few years, ur loosing money waiting, i know anyone on social security, like gypsy maybe, is probably like my mom, everyyear, she got a raise depending on the inflation rate, and that will be going up as inflation the news says will increase., with products costing more, because of transportation, my only problem is i cant get medicare till 65, so if obama get univeral health care im going at 62,, but if no medical insurance im working till, 65, well here is the age chart, as follows. as u know the law changed, u can draw it and still work . if u use to draw it u could not work till age 70 to not loose benefits, but that is no longer how it is, that changed as all this changed when this new law passed, many years ago,

Normal Retirement Age Year of birth Age
1937 and prior 65 years of age ,full retirement,
1938 65 and 2 months
1939 65 and 4 months
1940 65 and 6 months
1941 65 and 8 months
1942 65 and 10 months
1943-54 66 < MY GROUP full at age 66.. born in 51
1955 66 and 2 months
1956 66 and 4 months
1957 66 and 6 months
1958 66 and 8 months
1959 66 and 10 months
1960 and later 67

Well I have decited when I get sick and tired of chasing storms I will retire, as it stands I love this shit so will keep on as long as mother nature throws curves

Mays Gilliam wrote:Meemoon wrote:
My brother is watching his retirement fund shrink. He has been officialy notified his predicted SSA check he will start receiving at age 65, will be less;significantly less.
-----
A question to see if I understand this correctly.
A full retirement age used to be 65, but it shifts up to 67 or so now, so on 65 you dont receive full payment any more?
So far it s still 65 here, but today in the news they said the extra retirement funds will be frozen, due to losses in the stock markets.

here in Ky we draw at 62 or 65, but then after 65 we can make as much money as we want..

Gypsy, FICA deductions and SSA benefits are srictly a Federal matter, . Kentucky manages SSI benefits for those who don't qualify for SSA. A minor point, but important to the impoverished who would have no other source of income. An irony: I am required to pay for health insurance; SSI beneficiararies get free Medicaid. I do not resent that in any way.

meemoon wrote:Gypsy, FICA deductions and SSA benefits are srictly a Federal matter, . Kentucky manages SSI benefits for those who don't qualify for SSA. A minor point, but important to the impoverished who would have no other source of income. An irony: I am required to pay for health insurance; SSI beneficiararies get free Medicaid. I do not resent that in any way.

correct mark on fica and ssa, is a federal matter and the same nation wide, adn that chart is ofcourse federal and applys to everyone that will and is drawing social security,, notice the big chunk of years works to 66 then the other years it changes with the addition of months to the year..my dad had cancer and applyed for what ever u get for a disabilty, he died on a august 28 and his first check came on sept 1, so we had to send it back, but we did not loss all of it, im pretty sure im correct, i think, she could draw my dad social security, or she could draw hers and half my dads, as she did not work that many years, it was close to the same, i think she took hers and half my dads option,,i think im correct,

I did start a new topic because,I wanted to express baggy pants were not important, compared to the economy~ thank you`<> but here is where he said it first~ scroll to the very top..

tyler can correct me, if im wrong, if u click the reply thing it give u the option of changing the title of just the post ur on, at that moment, if u do the quick relpy it uses the title that is the original topic, so the topic has not changed, just one or two post titles, if u notice, other ppls titles are all the same and not mine. u did not notice others all had the same title, and not the one i used, and again, if im wrong, tyler can correct me,
or u had a new topic at a different place, i will check,

Correct rosco, you can change the "subject" in your post in any post that you are replying to, if you created the entire topic you can change the topic title of that too. However I don't recommend it much as it can get confusing to everyone trying to find the topic again, as made example in this situation of the "crap" post.

Ok enough already on this subject..LOL

rosco 357 wrote:N.J. Councilman Starts Crusade Against Saggy Pants
Paterson Politician Is Sick And Tired Of The Look And If He Has It His Way, Indecency Fines Will Soon Follow
Reporting
Christine Sloan PATERSON, N.J. (CBS) ― Instead of "stick 'em up," it will be more like "pull 'em up" now that fashion police in New Jersey have started a crackdown on baggy pants.

It's happening in Paterson, where city officials want to put the kibosh on this form of fashion.

Bart Johnson says wearing his pants low in a fashion statement, but one councilman is saying pull it up. He's even crafted a proposal to ban "baggy pants."

Teenagers and even little ones and women are sporting the fashion. The "saggy" or "baggy" look, where pants are pulled down and boxers are exposed seems to be all the rage these days.

Well, at least for some.

"I don't know. I'm not used to wearing my pants to my waist," college student LaToya Williams said.

Another young person quickly tried to justify the look to CBS 2 HD.

"My shirt's over it … it shows the nice belt interior," the boy boasted.

High school student Mikhail Josephs said the look is more than a fashion statement.

"When you sag your pants it can be either freedom of expression or rebellion," Josephs said.

Councilman Anthony Davis tells teenagers to pull it up every day, and soon he'll be introducing a proposal that would make walking around like this in Paterson subject to fine under the city's indecency law.

"We're tired of seeing your behind," Davis said. "We don't want to see your back side. We don't need to see your underwear. We don't need to see your drawers. Wear your pants."

Some teens we spoke to were all for "baggin'" the sagging look.

"Sometimes you don't have the cleanest underwear on," Rayshon Johnson said.

"It's disgusting," Lohina Uddin said. "[I think they are revealing] a little too much."

"I don't allow it," one parent added.

But others fear a dress code in an urban area could lead to profiling by police and that government shouldn't be telling people what to wear.

"We should be able to dress the way we want," Antoin Davis proclaimed.

Some say freedom to wear what they want and how they want is a long time coming.

"When I was growing up my mom didn't like what I wore," one woman said.

Cities have had a difficult time pushing through the baggy pants pans. In Irvington, N.J., a councilwoman recently had to pull her proposal after facing legal questions.

GYpsy this is the post you replyed to only it was on page 3 of the Day the Dollar fell, note the heading , then you started a new subject , not staying in the same stream...this is where the confusion started

but the thing is i did not start the topic, Rosco did ,then changed something~ all i know is i didn't start it, you accused me of starting it` so like i said take ur on advice before you dive in. now i am through with the subject..

Thats right SSC, If you reply to someones post its better to stay in the same thread and not create a new topic over it. A "New Topic" means just that, a NEW topic.

Ok I am totally confused now, what I saw was on page 3 Roscos article about baggy pants with a title about economy crap, then the NEW topic posted by Gypsy...that is what threw me off, not realizing she had attempted to tie in to the other topic...geeezzzzzzz we should have used this in a clue game

Yes, maybe its better to not alter the subject too like rosco did, and just leave the ""Re: whatever subject" is already in there. And only change the tile of your topic you create if its absolutely necessary and really for the better and clarification, taking into consideration it might be harder to find for someone that doesn't know the changed name.

But yes, Gypsy created a New Topic" in reply to rosco's changed subject name in his post. It would have been better for Gypsy to just click the "Reply" button as opposed to a New Topic.

Don't worry about it rosoc or Gypsy now, we all learned what kind of misunderstandings can arise when we change something like a title or subject name, so now we know to think about the ramifications.



And creating new topics when you should have clicked "reply"

very true, thanks Tyler..