Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JonFrum" data-source="post: 228257">Re: 60% . . . Where&#039;s your PROOF?I don&#039;t know how to make this any clearer than I already have. I am asking for PROOF that UPSers only receive 40% of the money UPS contributes on their behalf, and that the other 60% goes to subsidize the retirement of non-UPSers. I&#039;ve seen the figure quoted many times, and now here you are quoting it again. Indeed, that&#039;s all Raymond James is doing. They are just quoting what they read somewhere and taking it as Truth. Endlessly repeating the 60%/40% figure doesn&#039;t make it more true with each repetition. I&#039;m looking for an actual explanation. PROOF.It&#039;s also illogical to cite a report dated June 8,2007 to justify why you have been citing the figure since many months earlier. By the way, I read the Raymond James Report when it was first spammed to Browncafe by 1eyejack.&nbsp; It&#039;s the most amaturish report I have ever read. Everyone should see it for themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 228257"] [b]Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?[/b] I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. I am asking for PROOF that UPSers only receive 40% of the money UPS contributes on their behalf, and that the other 60% goes to subsidize the retirement of non-UPSers. I've seen the figure quoted many times, and now here you are quoting it again. Indeed, that's all Raymond James is doing. They are just quoting what they read somewhere and taking it as Truth. Endlessly repeating the 60%/40% figure doesn't make it more true with each repetition. I'm looking for an actual explanation. PROOF. It's also illogical to cite a report dated June 8,2007 to justify why you have been citing the figure since many months earlier. By the way, I read the Raymond James Report when it was first spammed to Browncafe by 1eyejack. It's the most amaturish report I have ever read. Everyone should see it for themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification