|
Just for basskisser!
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 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 |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". |
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? Hmm, are you REALLY so stupid that you don't think that just because something is researched and verified, that it can't be retracted?????? Answer: there is no corelation between the two. |
JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? |
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. |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! Asslicker - King of the NG idiots. |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! Asslicker - King of the NG idiots. He clocks out a 4:30 p.m. on the dot (he clocks in at 8 a.m.....follow the time of his posts) and he cannot afford a PC so we will not hear from him till Monday. Maybe we can pitch in to buy the poor guy a computer. I thought architects and engineers made good money. I have opened an escrow account on Paypal.....anyone want to contribute? ;-) |
On 4 Feb 2005 12:43:55 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? Yup. You got the Post figured out, basskisser. 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 |
On 4 Feb 2005 12:41:27 -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? Hmm, are you REALLY so stupid that you don't think that just because something is researched and verified, that it can't be retracted?????? Answer: there is no corelation between the two. Are you saying there is no relationship between the truth of a story and the verification of a story? Here is how a (probably conservative, goose-stepping) dictionary defines 'verify'. Main Entry: ver·i·fy Pronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Middle French verifier, from Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true 1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath 2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of There *must* be some relationship (although perhaps not a mathematical correlation) between the 'truth' and 'verification'. No? 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 |
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 |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! Asslicker - King of the NG idiots. He clocks out a 4:30 p.m. on the dot (he clocks in at 8 a.m.....follow the time of his posts) and he cannot afford a PC so we will not hear from him till Monday. Maybe we can pitch in to buy the poor guy a computer. I thought architects and engineers made good money. They do, but draftsman don't. :-) The funny thing is I think he really believes that people believe his countless fabrications. I have opened an escrow account on Paypal.....anyone want to contribute? ;-) |
JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! As suspected. Another intelligent post from JimH. |
JimH wrote: "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! Asslicker - King of the NG idiots. He clocks out a 4:30 p.m. on the dot (he clocks in at 8 a.m.....follow the time of his posts) and he cannot afford a PC so we will not hear from him till Monday. I hardly EVER turn on my computer on the weekends. I have a life. Maybe we can pitch in to buy the poor guy a computer. I thought architects and engineers made good money. Yep! What makes you think that I DON'T make "good money", Jim. Be specific. |
basskisser wrote: JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 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 ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good catch John. And he (along with Krause) blames others of goose stepping to the party line and having blinders on. I have asked both of them to find the "clue" that they lost and to get a brain from the Wizard this weekend. Krause still has the transplanted brain he found marked "Abby Normal". Hey, Jim, is your head up John's ass far enough yet? If so, stop and think for a second before you blindly post something just because he's one of your circle jerk friends. Whether or not something is verified and researched has no bearing on whether it is retracted or not. Do you think that the Post simply made up the original report? LMAO!! As suspected. Another intelligent post from JimH. Care to answer, or just post childish name calling? Grow up. Or, get some usenet help, you are very good at visiting the various support groups because your life is so pathetic that you need help dealing with your wife leaving you , and can't even raise a kid without help from others in your support groups. |
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 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 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? |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO |
JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? |
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That is our "king of the NG idiots" |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. |
Basskisser,
Tell us you made a joke, no one could be that silly. "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? |
JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Typical. Can't answer the question, huh? |
P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. Fritz, I see that you still don't have the mental capacity to post like an adult, and, because of your failure in life, must resort to childish name calling. Grow up. Why don't you act like an adult, and try raising your kid using your own ideas, instead of using support newsgroups as a crutch? Grow up. |
On 7 Feb 2005 11:11:32 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? Well, is that a 'verified' and 'well researched' fact? 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 |
On 7 Feb 2005 11:45:07 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. Fritz, I see that you still don't have the mental capacity to post like an adult, and, because of your failure in life, must resort to childish name calling. Grow up. Why don't you act like an adult, and try raising your kid using your own ideas, instead of using support newsgroups as a crutch? Grow up. More 'well researched' and 'verified' facts, hmmm? 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 wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 11:11:32 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? Well, is that a 'verified' and 'well researched' fact? John H Yes. |
John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 11:45:07 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. Fritz, I see that you still don't have the mental capacity to post like an adult, and, because of your failure in life, must resort to childish name calling. Grow up. Why don't you act like an adult, and try raising your kid using your own ideas, instead of using support newsgroups as a crutch? Grow up. More 'well researched' and 'verified' facts, hmmm? John H Yes. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 7 Feb 2005 11:45:07 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. Fritz, I see that you still don't have the mental capacity to post like an adult, and, because of your failure in life, must resort to childish name calling. Grow up. Why don't you act like an adult, and try raising your kid using your own ideas, instead of using support newsgroups as a crutch? Grow up. More 'well researched' and 'verified' facts, hmmm? Asslicker just likes jacking off in the wrong direction. It must be really bad when even harry has to point out his errors. 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 |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 7 Feb 2005 11:45:07 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 7 Feb 2005 06:28:00 -0800, "basskisser" Hey! Did you conveniently forget *our* thread? There's a question still hanging out there for you! John H You do know that it's not proper to answer a question WITH a question, don't you? LMAO That's usually the case. Have you ever noticed that when people are backed into a corner, without anything remotely intelligent to interject, they'll just about always start laughing nervously? ZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM Asslicker hears that noise so much he must think he lives near an airport. Fritz, I see that you still don't have the mental capacity to post like an adult, and, because of your failure in life, must resort to childish name calling. Grow up. Why don't you act like an adult, and try raising your kid using your own ideas, instead of using support newsgroups as a crutch? Grow up. More 'well researched' and 'verified' facts, hmmm? Asslicker just likes jacking off in the wrong direction. It must be really bad when even harry has to point out his errors. Fritz, I see that you still aren't man enough to post anything other than childish name calling. Go to your support groups and cry to them some more. It may help. Grow up. |
:) (hee, hee) 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 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com