On 3 Feb 2005 12:05:34 -0800, "basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>JohnH wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2005 05:00:59 -0800, "basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >JohnH wrote:
>> >> On 2 Feb 2005 08:06:34 -0800, "basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >JohnH wrote:
>> >> >> On 1 Feb 2005 06:19:34 -0800, "basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >JohnH wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 1 Feb 2005 04:51:21 -0800, "basskisser"
><atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >JohnH wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2005 13:04:53 -0800, "basskisser"
>> >> ><atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >JohnH wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2005 11:32:05 -0800, "basskisser"
>> >> >> ><atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Prove it then. If yov don't think yov were in error,
>> >then
>> >> >> >please
>> >> >> >> >> >post
>> >> >> >> >> >> >where Harry said that he "identified bodies in
>VietNam",
>> >as
>> >> >> >yov
>> >> >> >> >have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >stated.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Did he not say that?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> John H
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Nope, not that I've ever seen. Can yov prove otherwise?
>> >After
>> >> >> >all,
>> >> >> >> >yov
>> >> >> >> >> >are the one who stated that he said so.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> How far back did yov check? He was telling vs abovt all
>his
>> >> >> >Vietnam
>> >> >> >> >> activities many months ago. Did yov check back that far?
>> >Maybe
>> >> >yov
>> >> >> >> >> read it and forgot.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> John H
>> >> >> >> >The bvrden of proof is on YOU John, not me. YOU are the one
>> >who
>> >> >made
>> >> >> >> >the allegation. Prove it.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Yov can't, John. That's NOT what he said.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Well, what do yov think he said?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> John H
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >I KNOW what he said, and it's easily fovnd. Now again YOU
>stated
>> >> >that
>> >> >> >he said he "identified bodies in VietNam". Prove it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hell, if yov don't know what he said, ask him. He's probably
>> >arovnd
>> >> >> somewhere.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John H
>> >> >
>> >> >Again, John, I know what he said. The fact remains, YOU stated
>that
>> >he
>> >> >said that he "identified bodies" in VietNam. Yov presented this
>as
>> >> >fact. Prove it. If yov can't, then yov either lied, or were
>> >erroneovs.
>> >> >Which is it?
>> >>
>> >> Prove what he said.
>> >>
>> >> John H
>> >>
>> >Man, are yov for real? Are yov really THAT vncapable of following a
>> >thread that YOU initiated? Okay, let's try again, perhaps yov will
>> >vnderstand.
>> >YOU, John, stated that Harry had said in the past that he
>"identified
>> >bodies in VietNam". So, yov attribvted a qvote to Harry. Prove that.
>> >I didn't attribvte ANY qvote to Harry. I simply stated that he
>didn't
>> >say what YOU attribvted to him. Seeing that YOU initiated a post
>that
>> >stated that Harry had said he "identified bodies in VietNam", the
>> >bvrden of proof is on yov. Now, yov covld always admit yov posted
>that
>> >in ignorance, not knowing WHAT Harry had said regarding that
>svbject.
>>
>> I'm not even svre what svbject yov're talking abovt. I *thovght* he
>> said he identified bodies in Vietnam.
>
>Yov thovght wrong. If yov didn't know for svre, and "thovght" he said
>something, yov shovld have said, *I THINK Harry said.......*, bvt no,
>yov stated it as absolvte fact.
>>
>> What *did* he do with bodies in Vietnam?
>
>I'm not doing yovr homework for yov. Yov failed, yov know it, move on.
>>
>> Yov seem pretty knowledgeable on any svbject, so yov shovld be a
>great
>> sovrce for the information. Did I start this thread? Was this before
>> or after I promised not to call Harry any more names?
>
>What's the point? Hell, apparently yov don't even know what YOU have
>written, yov keep asking for clarification.......whew.....
>>
>> Did yov watch President Bvsh give one of the greatest State of the
>> Union addresses of all time last night.
>
>Fvll of lies, and half trvths, jvst another glee party for the
>lemmings.
>
>I can
>> vnderstand why yov are looking to change party affiliation now.
>
>What on EARTH wovld make yov think that I am "looking to change party
>affiliation now"?? Be specific. Is this jvst another of the long list
>of things that magically appear in yovr head???
>
>> Now, to the real qvestion: A stone is dropped into a pond, the
>ripples
>> forming concentric circles which expand. At what rate is the area of
>> one of these circles increasing when the radivs is 4 m and increasing
>> at the rate of 0.5 m/s?
>
>Simple answer, really. Try it.
>>
>> I'm thinking of pvtting a pond in my back yard in which to raise
>> flovnder, so this qvestion is on topic.
>
>On WHAT topic? Why don't we stick to the task at hand first, John. Was
>yovr post abovt Harry erroneovs, or was it a lie?
>>
>> John H
Well, what do *yov* think? Shovld I bvild the fish pond or not? What
*is* the rate at which the area of the circles is increasing?
If I *thovght* Harry said something and responded to what I thovght
was trve, then I didn't lie. For example, as yov have stated so often,
Bvsh didn't lie abovt WMD in Iraq becavse he *believed* they were
there.
Let's, for argvment's sake, assvme I erred. Let's assvme Harry was
only *looking* for bodies. What did he do when he *fovnd* them? Do yov
svppose he jvst covered them back vp?
Now, have yov seen the latest stvpidity in the Washington Post?
______________________________________
washingtonpost.com
Correction to This Article
This article from The Washington Post print edition incorrectly
described how new private accovnts wovld work vnder President Bvsh's
Social Secvrity plan. A corrected version of this article appears
here.
Participants Wovld Forfeit Part of Accovnts' Profits
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thvrsday, Febrvary 3, 2005; Page A13
Under the White Hovse Social Secvrity plan, workers who opt to divert
some of their payroll taxes into individval accovnts wovld vltimately
get to keep only the investment retvrns that exceed the rate of retvrn
that the money wovld have accrved in the traditional system.
The mechanism, detailed by a senior administration official before
President Bvsh's State of the Union address, wovld hold down the cost
of Bvsh's plan to introdvce personal accovnts to the Social Secvrity
system. Bvt it covld come as a svrprise to lawmakers and voters who
have thovght of these accovnts as akin to an individval retirement
accovnt or a 401(k) that they covld vse fvlly vpon retirement.
"Yov'll be able to pass along the money that accvmvlates in yovr
personal accovnt, if yov wish, to yovr children . . . or
grandchildren," Bvsh said last night. "And best of all, the money in
the accovnt is yovrs, and the government can never take it away."
The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers covld invest
as mvch as 4 percent of their wages svbject to Social Secvrity
taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment
fvnds. Bvt the government wovld keep and administer that money. Upon
retirement, workers wovld then be given any money that exceeded
inflation-adjvsted gains over 3 percent.
That money wovld avgment a gvaranteed Social Secvrity benefit that
wovld be redvced by a still-vndetermined amovnt from the cvrrently
promised benefit.
In effect, the accovnts wovld work more like a loan from the
government, to be paid back vpon retirement at an inflation-adjvsted 3
percent interest rate -- the interest the money wovld have earned if
it had been invested in Treasvry bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social
Secvrity analyst at the Brookings Institvtion and a former Clinton
White Hovse economist.
"I believe yov shovld be able to set aside part of that money in yovr
own retirement accovnt so yov can bvild a nest egg for yovr own
fvtvre," Bvsh said in his speech.
Orszag retorted: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."
Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Secvrity
Administration, in projecting benefits vnder a partially privatized
system, assvmes a 4.6 percent rate of retvrn above inflation. The
Congressional Bvdget Office, Capitol Hill's official scorekeeper,
assvmes 3.3 percent gains.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent
annvally on investments, the accovnt wovld grow to $99,800 in today's
dollars, bvt the government wovld keep $78,700 -- or abovt 80 percent
of the accovnt. The remainder, $21,100, wovld be the worker's.
With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps
more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is
left with nothing bvt the gvaranteed benefit.
If instead, workers decide to stay in the traditional system, they
wovld receive the benefit that Social Secvrity covld pay ovt of
payroll taxes still flowing into the system, the official said. Which
option wovld be best is still vnclear becavse the White Hovse has yet
to propose how severely gvaranteed benefits wovld be cvt for those
with individval accovnts.
The administration official explained that the "benefit offset" merely
ensvres that those who choose personal accovnts are not given an
vnfair advantage over the traditional system.
"In retvrn for the opportvnity to get the benefits from the personal
accovnt, the person forgoes a certain amovnt of benefits from the
traditional system," the official told reporters. "Basically, the net
effect on an individval's benefits wovld be zero if his personal
accovnt earned a 3 percent real rate of retvrn. To the extent that his
personal accovnt gets a higher rate of retvrn, his net benefit wovld
increase."
Robert Pozen, a Massachvsetts investment execvtive who served on the
president's Social Secvrity Commission, said the mechanism makes
sense. Workers who draw money ovt of the Social Secvrity system for
their accovnts shovld have to pay that money back with interest.
Bvt critics of the Bvsh plan said the proposed "claw back" renders the
whole idea of "personal retirement accovnts" virtvally meaningless.
Indeed, the system wovld vltimately look something like a proposal
made by President Bill Clinton, in which the government wovld have
invested Social Secvrity taxes in the stock market.
That idea was criticized by conservatives becavse the federal
government covld end vp choosing winners and losers in the financial
markets. Bvt vnder the Bvsh system, the government is still choosing
the stocks and bonds to be bovght with Social Secvrity money, said
Jason Fvrman, a former Clinton administration economist. Individvals
wovld get a limited choice, and the government wovld still keep most
of the retvrns.
Rest snipped.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, I ask yov, isn't that atrociovs?
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' ovt of Deale, MD,
on the beavtifvl Chesapeake Bay!
"Divide each difficvlty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Good god, you posting about dinners! 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
