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".

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?

"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? ;-)

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.

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 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

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.