喀什有什么好办法防止早泄(喀什怀孕34天可以查出来吗) (今日更新中)

SunTrust says a former employee may have tried to print information on about 1.5 million customers and share it with a "criminal third party."Chairman and CEO William Rogers Jr. made the announcement Friday as the regional bank released its quarterly earnings.Rogers said the bank believes the information included names and account balances, but not Social Security numbers, account numbers or passwords. He also said the bank has not identified "significant fraudulent activity" on the accounts.Rogers said this was discovered "in conjunction with law enforcement." He did not identify or elaborate on the criminal third party.SunTrust is the 12th-largest US commercial bank by assets, according to the Federal Reserve. The stock was down 3% in premarket trading after the announcement.  802

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Education Association (NEA) and AASA, The School Superintendents Association 174

TAHLEQUAH, Oklahoma — Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe with 365,000.On Monday, the tribe fired out a statement denouncing a U.S. senator's claim to her Native American ancestry through DNA testing.Senator Elizabeth Warren claims DNA testing confirms her Native American heritage.That test is something the Cherokee Nation, a sovereign nation, says does not prove anything."To talk now about her ancestry, her DNA analysis we think it muddy's the waters a little bit," said Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Secretary of State for the Cherokee NationHoskin says he finds Senator Warren's claims hurtful."That is a very special status," Hoskin said. "It's a legal status. It's a status that our ancestors fought long and hard for that's embedded in tribal law, embedded in federal law specifically in the treaties. We think as sovereign nations that means something,"To claim membership to the Cherokee Nation, you must be able to prove that you can trace your self back to the tribe's Dawes Rolls, which is the original enrollment documents."People have this family lore and they can't prove it and people go through long and drawn out processes sometimes," Cherokee citizen Deborah Reed said. "They'll submit paperwork to the Cherokee Nation because there's an application process."Cherokee citizens say this isn't a red versus blue issue, but it's about protecting treaties and their sovereignty."I think the important takeaway is that Elizabeth Warren remembers that the Cherokee Nation is who decides who their citizens are not individuals," Reed said.Sen. Warren is rumored to be throwing in her name to run against President Donald Trump in 2020. 1648

The “chicken wars” may be heating up again in the fast-food industry.McDonald’s announced Tuesday that it will soon be introducing spicy chicken nuggets to its menu, an item popularized by competitor Wendy’s.McDonald’s says it will start offering both Spicy Chicken McNuggets and Mighty Hot Sauce in the United States starting on September 16.“Breaded with a sizzling tempura coating made of both cayenne and chili peppers, these craveable, dippable and downright-delicious Spicy Chicken McNuggets are joining our classic McNugget line up, and pack plenty of spice and flavor into each bite,” wrote McDonald’s in a press release.The spicy nuggets and sauce will only be available for a limited time and at participating restaurants.“This is the first time we’ve introduced a new flavor of our classic Chicken McNuggets in the U.S. since they came to menus in 1983,” said Vice President of Menu Innovation, Linda VanGosen.The fast-food chain says the Mighty Hot Sauce is its first new sauce since 2017 and it will be the hottest one available at its restaurants.“For those who care to dial up the heat, we’ve crafted our new Mighty Hot Sauce, boasting a powerful blend of crushed red peppers and spicy chilis,” said McDonald’s.Additionally, McDonald’s says it will start selling a new McFlurry made with Chips Ahoy!“This delicious treat features vanilla soft-serve, caramel topping and Chips Ahoy! cookie pieces blended throughout,” said McDonalds.The Chips Ahoy! McFlurry will also be available for a limited time starting Sept. 16, in snack and regular sizes. 1568

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771

来源：资阳报