|
|
|
|
John H wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:
Yep! What makes you think that I DON'T make "good money", Jim. Be
specific.
Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question
still hanging
out there for you!
-------------------------------------
On 4 Feb 2005 12:47:12 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 04:52:23 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:
Now, have you seen the latest stupidity in the Washington Post?
It's not stupidity. Everything in the article has been
researched,
and
verified, unlike you, who makes wild assumptions, and posts
things
that
are not true about others.
Now, I ask you, isn't that atrocious?
It sure is, I wish you'd quit posting such atrocities.
Gosh, researched and verified, huh? Do you reckon that's why they
printed this retraction yesterday evening?
************************************************** ******
--------------------
Friday, February 04, 2005
--------------------
Correction: Personal Finance Newsletter
Folks, sometimes mistakes happen. The Personal Finance weekly
e-letter
that went out earlier today quoted extensively from a Washington
Post
article that was substantially updated and corrected after the
e-letter was sent to subscribers.
In writing off that article, I said President Bush failed to
disclose
all the details about his plan to add private accounts as an
option
in
the Social Security system. I noted that the original Post article
about the president's plan said workers would only be able to keep
a
portion of the total amount their personal account accrue over
their
working years.
That's not the case, as Post reporter Jonathan Weisman makes clear
in
the corrected version of that article: "[W]orkers who opt to
invest
in
the new private accounts would lose a proportionate share of their
guaranteed payment from Social Security plus interest. They should
be
able to recoup those lost benefits through their private accounts,
as
long as their investments realize a return greater than the 3
percent
that the money would have made if it had stayed in the traditional
plan."
And, more to the point, the amount workers contribute to their
personal accounts -- and all the gains those accounts earn over
the
years -- "would belong to the worker upon retirement, according to
White House officials."
You can read the new version of the article he " Participants
Would
Lose Some Profits From Accounts."
Here's how I still feel about the president's Social Security
agenda
-- I don't like it. If very smart Washington Post reporters can
have
trouble dissecting the complex details of the plan, then it's
going
to
be even harder for the rest of us.
Yes, workers will own their personal accounts, but there are no
guarantees that those accounts will earn more than what the system
as
currently constructed would deliver. As I wrote two weeks ago in
my
e-letter, "I believe the winners will be some wealthy Wall Street
types who are already jumping for joy at the prospect of earning
billions (yes, that's billions with a 'b') managing the millions
of
private accounts that would have to be set up under the Bush
administration's plan."
I will continue writing about the Social Security debate in this
e-letter and in my newspaper columns. Please keep sending your own
thoughts to .
-- Michelle Singletary
P.S. The rest of this week's e-letter contents -- from the reader
comments on Social Security to the income tax tips and Color of
Money
Book Club announcement -- stand as they are, so don't toss out the
earlier e-mail until you've had a chance to check out those other
items. --------------------
************************************************** ****
Doggone reporters, they'll do you in every time, basskisser,
especially when their crap is 'researched and verified'.
Now, were you lying about the research and verification, or did
you
just make an error. :)
John H
URL, please.
URL for what? If 'well verified' and the truth have no relationship,
just what difference would a URL make to you?
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes
John H
I only answer intelligent, direct questions. And then, only when MY
questions are answered. You do know that it's not proper to answer a
question WITH a question, don't you?
|