Cawaale, What? you spoke with Muriidi? That's a good sign. I'm glad the brother is doing all right *I was kinda Worried you know, because he did not post any thing for a while* Nina, You don't know Muriidi? Oooh.. I will tell you, he is very famous. Xitaa Jacaylbaro baa ka qayliyey..............I miss his Crazy threats. Mar marka qaarkood waxaat u maleynayso in uu qac yahay (hahahah just kiding Muriidi)

"Covered in 100,000kg of gold, platinum" Huh, and where you gonna park this thing?

Gheelle, saan si ma'aha Muriidi ha laga war doono....

Illaahay ha u naxariisto marxuumada.

Hahaha, Sida ay carabaka ugu adkeyneyso: "hayehh, hayehh" ayaaba very cute ah:D

Xaaji Xunjuf;735476 wrote: Looooooooool tani waba funny. Tallow ma waxay oo dhan wu gaaloobay Xaaji lab iyo dhadig baa isaga kaa khaldamay.

The Zack;735114 wrote: ^Using one's dialect si aad u dhaadhaajiso is offensive. Waa runtaa zack. Lakiin waxaa ka sii daran adiga oo doonaya in aad iyaga wax u sheegto ayey adiga kugu soo kala firiyeen!!! cajiib. Ha isku daalin asxaabtan, horaa loo yidhi: "waano abuuris baa ka horaysay"

Qaar xoolo ah baa hub loo dhiibay. Xeer iyo sharci qabanayaa ma jirto. War waxani xageey ka yimadeen?

,,,,dee waxaynu ka hadlaynay waxyaabaha bidaarta keena, screaming wife is one of them.

Taleexi, For your safety bal marka hore Sabaaxada soo baro. Waa hadii aad doonayso mid suunka madow haysata

Haheey..............hadaad isla murantiina wajigaageey buus buusee:D

Aaliyyah, anigu qoloyinkaas kuma jiro. Timo badan oo bulbul ah, oo waliba wajiga saaran ayaa madaxeyga ku yaal. Bidaarta iminka kama warwarayo may be 15-20 years down the road, when I have 12 childeren, (the Soccer team hahaha.), big house, and married with the screaming wive! dee markaas bidaartu iyadaa iska iman.

^^Dadka bidaarta leh waxa aad sheegtay in ay cunaan waaye marka......

Who Will Suffer if There's No Debt-Ceiling Deal Are they bluffing? Or could Washington politicians really torpedo the economy by refusing to raise the nation's borrowing limit? The conventional wisdom is that the debt-ceiling drama is mostly political posturing. Once they've made their point, the thinking goes, Republicans and Democrats arguing over how to rein in out-of-control government spending would reach some kind of agreement, raise the federal debt ceiling, and allow the government to keep functioning normally. But businesses and investors are starting to worry. The government will max out its borrowing ability in early August, and will have to dramatically cut spending if it's not allowed to borrow more. Taxes and other revenue only cover about 60 percent of what the government spends. It borrows--by issuing Treasury securities--to finance the other 40 percent or so. Economists are now running the numbers and trying to predict what will happen if the debt impasse continues and Washington has to stop borrowing. This is not work for the squeamish. There's a lot of talk about the government defaulting on its debt, but that's not likely to happen. The government collects about $200 billion per month in taxes and other revenue, and that cash would keep coming in. It borrows another $130 billion or so each month--the money it would have to live without. Interest payments on the nation's debt--which Washington must pay on time to avoid being in default--amount to about $30 billion per month. If forced to choose, the government would almost certainly prioritize debt payments above other obligations, because welching on bonds considered the world's safest would sink financial markets everywhere and make American the world's biggest deadbeat. And the Treasury Dept. would still have adequate cash flow to cover debt payments and remain in good standing with borrowers. Almost everything else the government pays for, however, would be vulnerable to sudden cutbacks. Here's who would feel the pain most abruptly: Social Security recipients. The government is due to deliver $23 billion in Social Security payments on August 3, according to forecasting firm IHS Global Insight. If the government is forced to cut 40 percent of its spending, these Social Security checks may not arrive. The suddenness with which the political battle in Washington will hit the wallets of ordinary Americans is one reason many analysts assume that a true impasse over the borrowing limit will be short-lived. But it could still be damaging. Social Security recipients who depend on their checks to pay other bills could end up running behind, incurring costly late fees or damaging their own credit. And it's no guarantee that if stopped, the government's check-writing machinery will start up again without delays or snafus that hold up checks even longer. Government employees. Another likely outcome is the shutdown of government offices and the furlough of federal employees. Everyone loves to bash government bureaucrats, but they're a meaningful chunk of the U.S. economy, amounting to 4.4 million workers, including the uniformed military. Many of them will stop getting paychecks, which at a minimum will slow spending and weaken the economy further. That would probably mean the closure of national parks, passport offices, veterans' facilities and many other government offices. Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service could be affected. The government would probably fence off the military and certain vital services, but even soldiers could be affected if the debt battle drags on. The unemployed. Washington currently offers extended unemployment benefits to nearly four million people who have exhausted state-level benefits, which last for 26 weeks in most states. Those checks could stop coming, too. One reason unemployment benefits are important is that recipients spend virtually all of the money, providing an immediate boost to the economy. A tighter crunch on the unemployed could also lead to more foreclosures and defaults on other types of consumer debt, since something will have to give if those checks stop arriving. Investors. Nobody's sure exactly how a sharp cut in federal spending would affect stock and commodity markets--except it would be bad. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress recently that a borrowing moratorium would generate "shock waves through the entire financial system." The U.S. government is the world's biggest spender, and the flow of money from Washington impacts virtually every financial market in the world, through checks sent to thousands of vendors and contractors, the rates paid on Treasury securities, and decisions made by the Federal Reserve. It's almost impossible to predict the daisy chain of events that would unfold as global investors reacted to the sudden upending of the world's financial order. But a few general outcomes seem likely. First, a borrowing moratorium of more than a few days might be enough to tip the U.S. and even the global economy into a recession, so banks, employers and foreign governments would suddenly adjust their own spending and prepare for tough times. "Risk" assets like stocks would plunge in value, with safer assets like gold soaring. Investors may flee dollar-denominated assets and search for other safe-haven currencies, though it's hard to tell which ones, since the euro and yen aren't exactly appealing. Some economists worry about a "TARP moment" similar to Sept. 29, 2008, when Congress first voted down the massive bank bailout bill--and the stock market fell about nine percent in a single session. Even if the debt ceiling were lifted after a few days of pandemonium, there could still be lasting damage. "There would be massive dislocation in financial markets, because the recipients of government spending that fail to get priority, and do not get paid, will be unable in turn to meet their own obligations," says economist Nigel Gault of IHS. "Confidence in the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its most basic responsibilities would be damaged." Borrowers. Interest rates would go up, but not necessarily soar. U.S. Treasury securities are a baseline investment that anchor the value of many other types of loans, and a sudden risk of default by the Treasury would change that calculus completely. Rates on Treasuries would go higher, to compensate for the increased risk. Many other interest rates would rise in tandem. But other factors would probably keep rates from rising to usurious levels. The Fed would probably act to counter fears of a recession. A recession itself, if one occurred, would weaken demand for credit, which usually pushes rates down. And investors would bid on bonds while expecting an eventual solution from Washington, which means a rate hike could be temporary. Even that, however, could play havoc with global portfolios. The government itself. Any moved that weakened the economy and threw more people out of work--or simply impeded hiring--would further reduce the government's tax revenues and make the U.S. debt problem worse. Art lovers, beachgoers, and public TV viewers. A long list of "discretionary" federal programs has been targeted for cuts or elimination, and those could end up getting whacked right away. These tend to be low-visibility programs that don't cost all that much--compared to huge budget items like Medicare or military spending--but fund nice-to-have things that many people would miss if they disappeared. Earlier this year, House Republicans outlined dozens of cuts they'd like to see in things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, beach replenishment, grants for intercity rail service, regional development agencies, and local transit. If cut, those programs could see funding restored once the crisis passes. But if the big spending cuts happen, Americans will notice that a lot of things they don't necessarily associate with Washington are suddenly unavailable. The federal government is big, indeed. We may be about to find out just how big. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Who-Will-Suffer-if-Theres-No-usnews-1162833064.html?x=0&.v=1

Public opinion polls show that voters like the idea of a balanced budget, but the government faces such massive budget gaps -- it now borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends -- that the cuts required to eliminate the deficit were too draconian for even the GOP-dominated House to endorse balancing the budget anytime soon. The House Republican budget still leaves deficits in the $400 billion range after 10 years. The house of cards ready to collapse!

Tea party debt plan takes center stage Tea party debt plan takes center stage as clock ticks on default WASHINGTON (AP) -- The next step in the weeks-long saga over how to increase the government's borrowing cap is to let House tea party forces try it their way. A Republican "cut, cap and balance" plan set for a House vote Tuesday would condition a $2.4 trillion increase in the so-called debt limit on an immediate $100 billion-plus cut from next year's budget and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. "Let's let the American people decide," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on "Fox News Sunday." "Do they want something common sense as cutting spending, capping the growth in government and requiring a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?" The idea appears to be to allow tea party-backed GOP lawmakers to have the run of Congress this week in hopes that they'll ultimately be able to stomach a plan emerging in the Senate to give President Barack Obama sweeping power to order a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit without approval by Congress. The cut, cap and balance plan, however, is a dead letter with Obama and in the Democratic-controlled Senate -- as is a separate effort by Republicans in that chamber to adopt a balanced budget amendment. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3rds vote of both Houses, including 67 votes in the Senate, where Republicans control just 47. "No one believes there are 67 votes for any version of that," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, on CBS' "Face The Nation." Public opinion polls show that voters like the idea of a balanced budget, but the government faces such massive budget gaps -- it now borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends -- that the cuts required to eliminate the deficit were too draconian for even the GOP-dominated House to endorse balancing the budget anytime soon. The House Republican budget still leaves deficits in the $400 billion range after 10 years. The immediate issue is allowing the government to continue to borrow from investors and foreign countries like China to pay its bills -- which include a $23 billion batch of Social Security checks set to go out the day after an Aug. 2 deadline to avoid default. With the deadline just over two weeks away and with a recent round of White House talks failing to generate a breakthrough, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the cagey leader of his party in the Senate, has proposed a plan that would allow Obama to automatically win a large enough increase in the debt to keep the government afloat until 2013 unless both House and Senate override him by veto-proof margins. McConnell's plan has political advantages but has come under assault from many conservatives eager to take advantage of the current opportunity to use the need to lift the debt ceiling to force deficit cuts now. But Republicans refuse to consider any tax revenue increases demanded by Obama and Democrats to balance any budget package, and Democrats won't go along with significant cuts to benefits programs like Medicare and Medicaid unless tax increases on the wealthy are a part of the package. "It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price, but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain," said Jacob Lew, the White House budget director, on ABC's "This Week." "Everything has to be on the table." That leaves lawmakers well short of the $2 trillion-plus in deficit cuts required to offset a debt increase that's big enough to solve the problem through next year's elections. A sense of futility has pervaded White House talks since Boehner abandoned hopes for a "grand bargain" with Obama a week ago Saturday, prompting McConnell to come out with his plan. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is on board but wants to add a plan to create yet another deficit panel, comprised entirely of lawmakers and evenly divided between the two parties, that would try to break the deadlock by the end of the year. It's also expected that a package of spending cuts, perhaps in the $1.5 trillion range over the coming decade, would be attached to the McConnell-Reid measure, perhaps in the House. For now, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is standing behind his tea partiers. But he seems open to the McConnell idea. "The cut, cap and balance plan that the House will vote on next week is a solid plan for moving forward," Boehner told reporters Friday. "Let's get through that vote, and then we'll make decisions about what will come after." For its part, the White House continues to press in public for a large-scale bargain. But it's obviously open to the McConnell plan. "There's multiple tracks that are being discussed," Lew said. "It's not a given how we get to raising the debt limit." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tea-party-debt-plan-takes-apf-4233148026.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

Nuune, Canjeero si fiican u faxday, oo indho waa weyn baad meesha soo dhigtay.

:D,,,,,Haye sanuuda yey kaa dhamaanin hee.

Nina Fox;734448 wrote: Showqi loool Missiles aan caadi aheyn baad igu garacdeen---Im on isdifaac mood, defence aan ku aruurey soo mahan. Meeshaan ka sugaayeey xalwo iyo sambuus with a big cup of coffee waxaa la igu tumayaa Weapons of Muufo Destruction. Its all good thou.I feel welcomed nevertheless lol Hahaha hahahaha hahahahaha........Nina, that was very funy aniga iyo Aaliyyah aa kugu goobanay haye. iska keen cafi hee. We were trying to show you some love from Toronto. Haye dhufeeyska ka soo bax hee xalwadii, doolshihii iyo sambuuskii waa kuwanaa,,

Nina, ha xanaaqin dee waa ku sidee! saaka ookiyaalihi baan ilaaway in aan gashado,,, markasaan qof walba mooday Marx. Bal raali noqo.

Green people (Alien) baa meesha ka soo buuxsamay. Mustafe bal soo dhowoow. Fresh blood waa loo baahan yahay oo la Saqiir-suujiyo...............

Nina Fox;734317 wrote: I would like to welcome y'all to my world lol. Yes yes Im welcoming you, Alien baad doonaysaa in aad nagu celiso................. Naga tag:p PS: I'll let y'all on a little secret. I have socially hung out with a few SOL-ers prior to my joining, years ago. Lets see if they can figure me out manuure-yaasha. I see some of them are still active, the old crocodiles. Waan ku garanayaa waxaad tahay Marx oo Garbasaar Cusub soo huwaday..

Yep, time is flying by. Way too fast.So I would choose #3 A Compass And A Clock! : Its 2011, Do you know where you are heading?

Xaaji Xunjuf, Propagandadisii baalal bay yeelatay. FBI bay maraysaa, way duushay...

Moody's warns it may downgrade US credit rating WASHINGTON (AP) -- Moody's Investors Service on Wednesday threatened to lower the United States' credit rating, saying there is a small but rising risk that the government will default on its debt. The credit rating agency said it will review the federal government's triple-A bond rating because the White House and Congress are running out of time to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit and avoid a default. The government reached its borrowing limit in May. Treasury says the government will default on its debt if the limit is not raised by Aug. 2. A downgrade would raise interest rates on U.S. treasury bonds, increasing the interest paid by U.S. taxpayers. It would also push up rates for mortgages, car loans and other debts, which are linked to Treasury rates. Moody's had warned in June that it would take this step if President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers failed to make progress on an agreement by mid-July. The other credit ratings agencies, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, have said they may make similar moves. Some Republican lawmakers have expressed skepticism that failing to raise the limit would have a major impact. But Moody's provided a stark assessment: "An actual default, regardless of duration, would fundamentally alter Moody's assessment of the timeliness of future payments." In short, that means the U.S. would lose its top rating, the agency said. Because a default would likely be short-lived, Moody's said it would likely downgrade U.S. debt to double-A. That is the second-highest of nine rankings under Moody's system. And Moody's warned that the U.S. wouldn't regain its triple-A rating right away if lawmakers raised the borrowing limit after a short-lived default. The agency said it would leave the rating unchanged for the "near term," although it didn't say how long that would be. Moody's has never given the U.S. government anything lower than its top rating since it began evaluating the country's debt in 1917. Moody's acknowledged that fights over the borrowing limit have been contentious before. But it said bond interest and principal have always been paid on time. The nation would likely retain its triple-A rating if the limit is raised before a default. But Moody's said it could assign a negative outlook on U.S. debt if lawmakers and the president fail to make major progress on a long-term plan to reduce the federal deficit. Jeffrey A. Goldstein, a Treasury Department official, said the announcement is a "timely reminder of the need for Congress to move quickly ... and agree upon a substantial deficit reduction package." But talks between the Obama administration and Republican leaders in Congress are at a standstill. Republicans are insisting on deep spending cuts as a condition of voting to raise the limit. Democrats want to include tax increases to help close the budget gap, a move Republicans adamantly oppose. Obama and GOP lawmakers met for a fourth straight day Wednesday. Obama has said the daily meetings will continue until a deal is reached. The stalemate prompted the top Republican in the Senate to propose giving Obama sweeping new powers to increase the limit to avoid default. Other Republicans criticized the idea. "We need to get hit over the head to do the right thing," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, a bipartisan group of experts and former members of Congress that study budget policy issues. "It's terrible it's gotten this far but it's necessary," she added, referring to Moody's review. Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, which advocates for deficit reduction, said the warnings from the ratings agencies reflect concerns about U.S. politics, rather than its ability to handle large debts. "Right now we've got these dysfunctional debt limit talks," Bixby said. "It's not surprising that an agency like Moody's would weigh in and say, `Hey guys, this is the real world.'"