posted on March 8, 2005 02:09:29 PM new
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- President Bush and his allies are working hard to nullify the power of the AARP, the mighty lobby for older Americans that is the archenemy to his Social Security plan.
Everywhere he goes, Bush promises the group's members they won't be touched by his plan, while his backers charge that AARP is out of touch and prone to scare tactics.
Polling makes clear that young people like Bush's plan for personal accounts in Social Security while old people don't, so Bush is hoping to shift the debate away from the old and toward the young.
In an airport hangar here, college senior Amy Partin joined the president onstage to serve as a human reminder of the future. Bush hit his central message over and over -- people over 55 will not be affected by changes he's proposing. He used the phrase "nothing changes" four times.
"Once the seniors realize nothing changes, the voices you'll hear from are the Amys of America," Bush told 2,000 people assembled recently for one of a string of campaign-style events pitching his Social Security plan.
At the same time, conservatives allied with Bush are trying to undercut the AARP.
"AARP doesn't care about the children or grandchildren of their own membership, and I think that's very shortsighted," Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., contended Tuesday.
A group that bills itself as an alternative to the AARP, USA Next, has run Internet ads suggesting AARP is a liberal front for everything from gay marriage to gun control, and the group's leader says a wave of direct mail, TV and radio ads are coming next.
It's risky. Polling shows that the AARP is more respected than any other prominent voice in the Social Security debate, including Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and congressional leaders of both parties.
"You have to be careful who you attack," said Republican strategist Ed Rollins, who recently conducted a bipartisan poll on Social Security. "Going after the AARP is nuts. Don't make them the enemy."
AARP agrees with Bush that Social Security faces long-term financial problems and says it wants to be part of the discussion about how to fix them. Officials note that they helped Bush pass a prescription drug bill for Medicare opposed by many Democrats (a move that cost the group some 60,000 members). Further, AARP chief Bill Novelli recently met with Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Al Hubbard, his chief economic adviser, to talk about Social Security.
But the AARP deeply opposes the centerpiece of the White House plan: allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal accounts that could be invested in the stock market in trade for reduced guaranteed benefits.
The group has spent some $10 million in newspaper advertisements advising: "If you have a problem with the sink, you don't tear down the entire house."
Polling finds that overall support for the Bush plan is falling, though younger people are more supportive than older people. With this in mind, the AARP is planning television and radio ads targeted toward young people to run during the next congressional recess in late March.
"We feel like they have both the largest stake in this debate and the least amount of information about it," said John Rother, AARP's policy director.
In his speeches, Bush never criticizes the AARP directly, but USA Next does.
That group, which claims a membership of 1.5 million and a budget of $10 million, has run a stream of Internet ads assailing the AARP. Chairman Charlie Jarvis said TV and radio ads will soon run in states identified as pro-free market, with a large direct mail campaign starting in the next couple of weeks.
"They are a Goliath of left liberal lobbying groups," reads a draft letter Jarvis is preparing. "USA Next is admittedly a David against the Goliath but I like the way that story ends."
Rother says he's not worried.
"We've been around a long time and are a pretty well-known organization. I don't think people are going to believe false things," he said.
Bush's effort to undercut the AARP is subtler, simply promising older people that their benefits are safe. The AARP responds that Bush might mean that, but he can't guarantee it. They say that his plan for private accounts will cost so much money -- up to $2 trillion -- that it will create pressure on the government to cut spending, perhaps including benefits for current retirees.
Even if seniors are protected, many still care enough about Social Security to get involved in the debate. It's not simply a matter of self-interest, said Jon Krosnick, a political psychologist at Stanford University.
"Older people care about other old people as well as everyone else who will be old in the future," he said. "Many of them understand the political power they have as a group."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 8, 2005 04:18:45 PM new
Logan, Americans are seeing that this White House often says one thing and does another. This White House has lost most of its creditability. Americans are finding it hard to trust what this White House says about SS.
Its great to see that the American people are becoming more involved and informed.
A person only need to be 50 years old to join AARP.
A group that bills itself as an alternative to the AARP, USA Next, has run Internet ads suggesting AARP is a liberal front for everything from gay marriage to gun control, and the group's leader says a wave of direct mail, TV and radio ads are coming next.
Th right wants private investment accounts. They keep wanting a choice. They have that choice now to do it on their own, but what is stoping them. I guess the government can handle their money better than they can....
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 8, 2005 05:15:08 PM new
What is their choice Logansdad? Maybe they can't do anything but contribute to SS so guess what they have no choice and soon that choice won't be there for them.
posted on March 8, 2005 06:18:11 PM new
As a member of AARP (and I don't know if I'll renew my membership), the only thing I find beneficial in their services is the Hotel/Motel discount. And even that isn't a great savings when making reservations via Hotwire or some of the others discounters.
The proposed Social Security reform will have no affect on current AARP members and wasn't AARP all in favor of Pres Bush's perscription plan a while back?????????
--------------
AARP Invests in Hypocrisy
The President has made fixing Social Security his number-one domestic objective, but the fight won't be easy -- in part because of fierce opposition by the AARP, the seniors' lobby, with 35 million members.
The AARP is using an old strategy: trying to scare the wits out of old people. The organization's executives want its members to think that Social Security will be destroyed by offering young people the option of personal accounts.
The President's plan will likely allow workers to put up to four percentage points of what they now pay in taxes into a small number of broadly diversified portfolios of stocks and bonds.
This is hardly radical. Half of American families already own mutual funds, and most AARP members are retirees who don't pay into Social Security anyway, so they won't be exercising the option. But those facts don't stop the AARP from painting a frightening picture that equates investing with casino gambling.
In one ad, labeled "misleading" by the nonpartisan watchdog FactCheck.org, the AARP shows a wild cocoa trading pit with the headline, "Winners and Losers are stock market terms. Do you really want them to become retirement terms?"
Another AARP ad features a man and woman considering the Bush plan and saying, "If we feel like gambling, we'll play the slots."
But the AARP is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says that stock and bond investing is like playing a slot machine at the same time it promotes stock and bond investing by selling 38 mutual funds to its members and taking a cut from each sale.
As former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) once said, "I never saw the AARP do anything that would hurt their business."
Among the AARP funds are far riskier choices than advocates of Social Security reform would ever offer to American workers: for example, a Latin American stock fund, a junk-bond fund, and a fund that holds shares of companies based in such highly volatile markets as Indonesia and Russia.
AARP Services, Inc., the lucrative business arm of the AARP, entered into a deal with Scudder Investments to sell mutual funds to its members as part of a special affinity program. According to a prospectus, Scudder pays AARP an annual fee for the use of its trademark that ranges from .05 percent to .07 percent of assets. That can come to a lot of money. One fund alone, Scudder Growth & Income AARP, manages $5 billion.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. AARP's website carries solid information about how to invest wisely, but the organization's anti-Social Security ads make investing - even under the tough restrictions advocated by reformers -- look like a game for dumb suckers and out-of-control gamblers.
Ironically, the AARP's professed concerns do not extend to its own choice of mutual funds. Scudder has not enjoyed a reputation for stellar performance in recent years - to put it mildly.
Morningstar, the mutual fund research firm, gives many of the funds mediocre and poor ratings. For example, Scudder's balanced AARP fund, which, since it holds a mix of stocks and bonds, would normally be a good choice for older investors, wins just two stars (below average) from Morningstar out of a possible five. The fund ranks in the bottom 10 percent of its category over the past three years.
Another possible choice for seniors is the AARP Large Company Growth fund, but, since its inception in 2001, it has failed each year to beat the broad market average, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. The fund gets just two stars from Morningstar and the admonition, "We see no reason to buy it."
The AARP says it "strives to keep…operating expenses below the industry average." But look at an obvious choice: the Scudder AARP fund that mimics the S&P 500. According to Morningstar, the AARP fund charges a whopping .40 percent per year in expenses - more than twice as much as similar Fidelity and Vanguard funds. "This shouldn't be your first S&P index fund choice," says Morningstar. No kidding!
Long-term stock and bond investing is not gambling. In fact, it's the opposite. Since 1802, stocks have returned an annual average of 6.8 percent, after inflation, and research shows that the longer you hold shares, the lower the risk. The folks who run the AARP know this. Instead of scare tactics, they should offer their members better services - as well as more honesty and less hypocrisy.
--------------
In Fighting Social Security Reform, AARP Can't Tell Truth from Myth
by Alan Reynolds
Posted Feb 18, 2005
The AARP claims to represent us seniors, but more often it just lectures us relentlessly. One such sermon in the AARP Bulletin, opposing any addition of choice and ownership to Social Security, boasted that "groups like AARP that oppose (privatization) will spend millions of dollars to sway opinion." Apparently, it plans to waste thousands of words, too, and without much concern about accuracy.
When it is not trying to sway our opinion against the White House, AARP tries equally hard to sell us various financial services, in exchange for big kickbacks. The latest AARP Magazine contains a record number of annoying insert ads that fall on the floor when you pick it up. They advertise, among other things, AARP Auto Insurance from The Hartford, AARP Life Insurance from New York Life, AARP health insurance from United Health Care and mediocre mutual funds from Scudder. If Eliot Spitzer is still obsessing about "conflict of interest," perhaps he should take a look.
AARP Magazine features "Myths and Truths About Social Security" by "the magazine's Social Security expert" Karen Westerberg Reyes. I was not surprised to find their expert audaciously redefining truths as myths and myths as truths.
Even the undeniable truth that "private accounts will give individuals more control" is magically redefined as a myth. Why? Because "people already have control over their money when they invest in private pensions, IRAs and 401(k) plans." Well, some people have employer-provided pensions, but most do not. Many could invest in an IRA, but people need to save for other reasons (such as the kids' college or down payment on a home).
It is difficult to save much after 12.4 percent of their paychecks go into a Social Security slush fund to be distributed in ways politicians find politically expedient. Unlike any personal savings, individuals have zero control over Social Security. They can't even draw it down more quickly if facing a terminal illness. And they get nothing if they die early.
AARP takes the easily demonstrable truth that "individuals will get higher returns with private accounts" and somehow redefines it as a myth without mentioning a single fact. Since 1900, the average return on stocks was 6.3 percent a year, according to the Bridgewater Group, but only 1.4 percent on U.S. bonds. Rather than mentioning such bothersome facts, the author alleged: "In the current Social Security system, the risk is near zero. ... That's because U.S. Treasury bonds don't crash when the stock market does." That statement condensed several myths into just two sentences.
Anyone who tells young people there is "near zero risk" of getting a very bad deal from Social Security is a sham fortuneteller. The future return will depend on the payroll tax, the age at which benefits are paid, the formula for determining benefits and the way benefits are taxed. All four variables have been changed many times -- always in the direction of making younger people pay more and get less -- and much tighter squeezes are being proposed as ways to "save" Social Security (at the expense of younger Americans).
Social Security never guaranteed anyone anything. To prove that point, AARP advocates what the author mythologizes as "small adjustments" or "a tune-up." In truth, these "adjustments" involve raising taxes and reducing benefits, thus reducing the return. Nobody knows whose taxes will be raised the most and whose returns will be cut, so the political risk from Social Security is far more unpredictable than the market risk of investing in a balanced mutual fund. The risk of a negative return on Social Security taxes is extremely high for younger college-educated people who work too many years and save too much money, because they will be said to be able to "afford" higher taxes and to not "need" the benefits.
The AARP writer's second big myth was saying the reason Social Security risk is near zero is "because U.S. Treasury bonds don't crash when the stock market does." That statement is a mixture of myths within myths.
Nearly all Social Security taxes fund an immediate transfer payment from workers to pensioners. True, the ephemeral surplus will collect a little interest income for a few more years, but the amounts are trivial compared to payroll taxes.
The claim that Treasury bonds do not crash "when the stock market does" implies a dangerous myth -- that Treasury bonds have never crashed. In reality, the value of bonds goes down whenever interest rates go up. The yield on 10-year Treasuries rose from 6.2 percent in 1971 to 13.9 percent in 1981, for example, so Treasury bonds lost about half their nominal value at a time of high inflation.
In any event, the comparison between stocks and bonds is invalid because those choosing personal accounts would be allowed to invest in Treasury bonds, while Social Security will soon be too broke to do so.
Other so-called myths rely on such unbiased sources as New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, former Clinton official Peter Orszag and some indecipherable gibberish from gadfly Barbara Kennelly.
Readers are told Social Security "is in better shape today" than ever. But nobody claimed the central problem -- that the number of seniors will double in three decades -- had anything to do with "today." AARP sees no problem because "workers today are more productive, earn higher wages and plan to stay in the workforce longer -- all factors that will help fill the future gap." That is a devious way of saying today's young people can afford to pay higher taxes and they won't need benefits because they'll just keep working. That may not sway the opinion of young people. It won't help fill the gap, either, because all those factors were taken into account when estimating that gap.
Don't worry, says AARP, because in 2042 "the system will still bring in enough revenue to pay nearly 75 percent of benefit amounts." Those who plan on retiring at that time may not be swayed by AARP's insistence they won't need private accounts to offset a cut in benefits that just begins at 27 percent in 2042, with deeper cuts in following years.
In excusing such blatantly one-sided propaganda, AARP claims to "gather members' ideas from phone calls, letters (and) emails." Yet it has never gone out of its way to gather my ideas, and may have neglected yours, too. If anyone wants to offer them some better-informed ideas, AARP's address is 601 E. Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20049. Its phone is (888) 687-2277, and its website is www.aarp.org.
Meanwhile, it's time for older people who care about their kids and grandkids to mail back their AARP cards to the address above, and to boycott products and financial services advertised by this big-spending propaganda shop. Enough is enough. In fact, it's too much.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
-------------------
Social Security reform ambush
By Charles Jarvis
AARP, the planet's largest "liberal" lobby, now openly opposes President Bush on Social Security. It could be a fatal mistake to fight his efforts to give workers the freedom to choose a better deal.
In a letter to members, the organization flatly opposes allowing workers the freedom to choose to shift some of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal savings and investment accounts that would pay part of their future retirement benefits.
AARP fails to recognize that Social Security no longer is a good deal for working people today, the children and grandchildren of its members. For most of these workers, even if Social Security could somehow pay all its promised benefits, the real rate of return represented by those benefits on taxes paid into the program would be 1 to 11/2 percent or less. For many it would be zero or even negative.
Workers would now get a much better deal saving and investing in personal accounts. Let's look at how one concrete reform proposal would work, the legislation introduced in Congress by Republicans Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire.
That bill would allow workers to save and invest roughly the amount in their FICA box each paycheck in their own personal account, which they would directly and individually own just like their IRAs or 401(k)s. A study by Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation showed workers investing through such accounts over their lifetime half in stocks and half in bonds and earning standard market investment returns would retire with enough money in their accounts to pay about two-thirds more than Social Security promises, but cannot pay. If they invested two-thirds in stocks and one-third in bonds, at standard returns their accounts would be able to pay them about twice what Social Security promises.
AARP argues "the guarantee Social Security provides is one worth strengthening, not replacing." But the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly held that under the law Social Security benefits are not federally guaranteed. In the case of Fleming vs. Nestor decided in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled Congress retains the power to cut some or all Social Security benefits to some or all workers at any time.
In contrast, the Ryan-Sununu bill does include an explicit federal guarantee all workers would receive the full benefits promised under current law, whether they choose the personal accounts or choose to stay completely in the current Social Security framework. The bill thereby provides a better and fuller safety net than the current system.
AARP argues that if workers are allowed to shift some of their payroll taxes into personal accounts, the current system would lose money and be weakened. But under the Ryan-Sununu bill, as in any personal account plan, trillions of dollars of new funds are put into an expanded and modernized Social Security framework, to ensure all promised benefits, and ultimately more, are paid. These funds come from the much higher investment returns that would be earned through the personal accounts and from federal general revenues not now used for Social Security.
AARP embraces a fallacy when it says this new funding means personal accounts are expensive. The transition financing under such reform represents the money going into the personal accounts of working people all over the country. With that money, and the accumulated investment returns, after just the first 15 years under Ryan-Sununu, workers would have accumulated $7.8 trillion in today's dollars in their personal accounts, according to the official score of the bill by the chief actuary of Social Security.
Moreover, in the process of such reform, the current $10.5 trillion unfunded liability of Social Security would be eliminated. Transition financing for personal accounts would be much less, eliminating this huge debt and leaving workers with trillions in personal account assets and higher benefits.
AARP advocates instead raising taxes and forcing all state and local government workers into Social Security. But these solutions are more of the AARP same. AARP went along with taxation of Social Security benefits adopted in 1983, and with 1993's sharp increase in those taxes. It has not supported repeal of the death tax and reduced capital gains taxes, which would both greatly benefit seniors. AARP represents its political interests in Washington, not retirees.
Republicans and other personal account advocates would be foolish to let AARP dictate policy on personal accounts. AARP is all bluff and bluster. For more than a decade, polls have consistently shown overwhelming public support for personal accounts — in the range of two-thirds or more. This support cuts across party lines, and is particularly strong among Hispanics and African Americans. The support has been borne out in the past three election cycles, where candidates supporting personal accounts have won over and over again.
Let's not give in to Washington poseurs what we have already won at the grass roots. AARP wants a fight on this issue, and we are going to give it one.
Charles Jarvis is chairman and chief Executive of USA Next — United Seniors.
-------------
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 8, 2005 06:58:53 PM new
Great articles, bear. And I agree it's just more scare tactics from the left.
The way SS is now...there is no guarantee of anything, EXCEPT HIGHER TAXES OR LOWER BENEFITS especially for the young people....the way the dems want to 'save/solve' the problem. It's always their way.
And I already sent in my renewal slip to AARP....along with a letter explaining why I WASN'T renewing my membership.
--------
OKAY LOGANSDAD - I've obviously not seen where THIS PRESIDENT has been using 'More Scare tactics' as you stated in your title of this thread. Doesn't appear that your article says any such thing. Maybe you could point it out to me?
But on this statement from the AARP:
Bush's effort to undercut the AARP is subtler, simply promising older people that their benefits are safe. The AARP responds that Bush might mean that, but he can't guarantee it.
Of course he can. Have they not heard of his power to VETO anything he doesn't agree with? He has, more than once, in the last 4+ years stated to our Congress 'I will not sign a bill that xxx'. And they KNOW he is a man who means and will do what he says. He could easily just say...if that protection I have promised is not in the bill that comes to my desk...I won't sign it.
And I agree....AARP is going more and more to the left in support of their policies...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 8, 2005 07:47:20 PM newAs a member of AARP (and I don't know if I'll renew my membership), the only thing I find beneficial in their services is the Hotel/Motel discount. And even that isn't a great savings when making reservations via Hotwire or some of the others discounters.
posted on March 8, 2005 08:11:23 PM new
Great article Bear. I have never belong to AARP and my husband was a long time ago. I don't find it necessary to belong to lobby groups that do nothing but talk big and collect money. They have a hugh budget and I wonder what the CEO, if that is what you call him, makes. Is that public knowledge. If I have time before I fall asleep before the computer I will do it.
_________________
posted on March 8, 2005 08:26:26 PM new
AARP Grows Into $636 Million Empire
Excite News via AP ^ | Nov 28, 3:34 AM (ET) | By SHARON THEIMER
Posted on 11/28/2003 8:05:18 AM PST by raybbr
WASHINGTON (AP) - AARP's fight for legislation giving private insurers a new role in Medicare surprised many Democrats, but in fact the giant retiree group has long been in the health insurance business itself.
In 45 years, AARP has grown from a program founded to insure retired teachers to a more than $636 million-a-year empire that pays its chief executive a half-million-dollar salary and lends its name to things such as pharmacy services and Medicare supplemental insurance, and discounts for hotel rooms, car rentals, shopping and cruises.
AARP bills itself as an advocacy group for older Americans, but draws more than two-thirds of its income from ventures other than its $12.50 membership fee. Its lobbying costs, though in the millions of dollars, are a tiny fraction of its revenue.
Executive director William Novelli says AARP is part business, part senior citizens' advocate and part lobbying group.
"There's no dichotomy in our minds. If you look at why people belong to AARP, here's why they belong. They like the discounts, they value the products and services we offer, they like our publications," Novelli said. "But probably near the very top is the fact that we speak out on behalf of older Americans."
AARP began in 1958, years before the government created Medicare to provide health care coverage for older Americans.
Novelli recounts a colorful history. Retired California school principal Ethel Percy Andrus was so appalled that many educators couldn't afford health insurance in retirement - she reportedly discovered one living in a chicken coop - that she formed the National Retired Teachers Association in 1947. She approached health insurance companies until she found one willing to insure her members at an affordable price.
Looking for more members, Andrus formed the American Association of Retired Persons and expanded the group's offerings to a range of discounted products and services, including mail-order pharmacy services.
In the years since, AARP lowered its membership age to 50 and dropped its original name in favor of the acronym to reflect its broader membership. The latest edition of its magazine features a cover photo of beaming, apparently wrinkle-free actress Lauren Hutton with the tag line "Sixty is the new thirty."
AARP even offers motorcycle insurance for those spry enough to hit the road. A third of its members are under 60, one-third 60-69, and the other third 70 and above.
Aggressive marketing has built AARP into a 35 million-member titan. These days, the first greeting card many Americans get as their 50th birthdays approach comes from AARP in the form of an invitation to join - whether they consider themselves close to retirement or not.
"We have a big satellite system that tracks everybody," Novelli joked, explaining that the group trolls for new members by using public information such as driver's license records. "Some people are put off by it. Other people say, 'Hey, let me see those discounts.'"
Novelli defends his corporate CEO-style salary - $458,468 last year, plus $9,266 for expenses - as appropriate given the organization's size. His predecessor, Horace Deets, has a deferred compensation payout worth $2.65 million.
Novelli said the AARP plows its profits into its advocacy and lobbying work, including legal assistance for the elderly. It is officially nonpartisan and doesn't make campaign donations.
Nonetheless, the group has gained enemies in Washington along the way.
Retired Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., scrutinized the group's profit-making enterprises while in the Senate in the mid-1990s, questioning how AARP could be entirely tax-exempt when it was making millions. AARP ultimately was forced to move its business side to a for-profit, taxable subsidiary called AARP Services Inc.
Simpson said he joined AARP when he turned 60, "just to see what they did."
"I just couldn't believe it. Everything was about money: 'Send in your dues,'" Simpson said. "The advertising wasn't directed to the little guy. It was how to do resorts and cruises, and special wheelchairs and stairs in your home for five grand."
Simpson tells a different story of AARP's genesis. His inquiry revealed it was started by a teacher and "a defrocked insurance peddler" who thought they could make money on retiree insurance, he said: "And boy, they did."
Simpson is skeptical of the AARP's declaration that it doesn't know whether its health insurance and prescription drug businesses will be helped, hurt or both by the Medicare bill. The recently approved measure, which President Bush is ready to sign, will provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit and give private insurers a new role.
"I never saw the AARP do anything that would hurt their business," Simpson said.
AARP's member health insurance program, administered with major insurance companies United Healthcare and MetLife, reaped at least $161 million for AARP last year, its financial reports show.
Novelli said AARP considered the Medicare bill good public policy, and that its own health care ventures weren't a factor. AARP's push for the bill so angered some in the group that thousands have canceled their memberships.
posted on March 8, 2005 08:54:56 PM new
Bear, this White House put a whole new spin on "scare tactics". I wonder what color terrorists levels are at today. purple,orange,white,red,green,or are they red,white,and blue or gray like mushroom clouds. Now this White House and its supporters says AARP is using "scare tactics". LOL
Keep it up readers don't believe what spin doctors like Linda K,bear,libra63, or me say. Its very important to check out what this White House is doing for ya or doing to ya yourself. Get truly informed and trust yourself. The spin doctors on the right can make mushroom clouds out of plain old smoke and they blow a lot of it.
Now this White House is trying to make you believe that SS is going to fall apart almost overnight. LOL. I believe this is nothing more than a White House "scare tactic" designed as a ploy to make the rich and industry richer using your money. Back the SS reform only after you really check it out because this White House does not have a very good record of telling America the truth.
In the next few months this White House will try to divide and then conquer the young and old in an effort to win SS reform for the rich and industry.
posted on March 9, 2005 03:41:39 AM new
"As a member of AARP (and I don't know if I'll renew my membership), the only thing I find beneficial in their services is the Hotel/Motel discount. And even that isn't a great savings when making reservations via Hotwire or some of the others discounters. "
Bear-I am too-and I agree with you whole heartdly.I got it 10 years ago in April although my b-day is a couple of weeks away.I think I actually used it twice in those 10 years.I got it real cheap thou-it was $50.00 for the 10 years,so I figured I had nothing to lose.It was a 10% discount on hotels-so if a room was $100.00 a night I got $10.00 off.Big deal, I can do a lot better going thru Travelolocity or something other website.No Im not going to renew the membership.
[ edited by classicrock000 on Mar 9, 2005 03:42 AM ]
posted on March 9, 2005 04:50:48 AM new
Bear and classic, your right guys if you feel all AARP has to offer you is Hotel discounts then you shouldn't renew you memberships. It seems like to millions of other AARP members it offers more.
"Older people care about other old people as well as everyone else who will be old in the future"
posted on March 9, 2005 07:35:49 AM newIt seems like to millions of other AARP members it offers more.
I've researched AARP sponsored insurance. I have found less expensive life insurance via Colonial Life , less expensive auto insurance via GEICO and their perscription plan is a farce.
AARP is the only ones using scare tactics.
If you really want to read about Social Security reform,
posted on March 9, 2005 05:08:08 PM new
Bear you are right. All AARP wants to do is pad their wealth and they are doing it with scare tatics on the retired.
My husband looked into car insurance and found them to be higher than quite a few other insurances.
As to the discount what is 10%. Not much sometimes it doesn't even buy a descent meal.
So why pay the fees to get nothing in return. All they are is a big lobby group and their lobbying isn't doing any good. The only ones getting anything out of AARP is their CEO and the lobbyists.
But of course certain posters overlooked the CEO salary.
posted on March 10, 2005 08:47:49 AM newThe way SS is now...there is no guarantee of anything, EXCEPT HIGHER TAXES OR LOWER BENEFITS especially for the young people.
Not like Bush has provided any specifics on his plan either. All he has offered is generalizations.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 10, 2005 09:00:11 AM new
I know that changes being sought for SS will not affect people on SS now but I hope that SS is solvent for years to come. As many people will need that to continue to live a productive life.
If SS is in trouble, which we are told then it should be fixed. If SS is not in trouble, as we are told than it should be left alone. It is a he said she said about SS but since we cannot predict the future only time will tell.
posted on March 10, 2005 09:14:30 AM new
I asked you: OKAY LOGANSDAD - I've obviously not seen where THIS PRESIDENT has been using 'More Scare tactics' as you stated in your title of this thread. Doesn't appear that your article says any such thing. Maybe you could point it out to me?
And your answer is: Not like Bush has provided any specifics on his plan either. All he has offered is generalizations.
LOL....so THAT'S what you meant by: More scare tactics from Bush. figures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 10, 2005 09:17 AM ]
posted on March 10, 2005 03:06:51 PM new
I was just watching c-span and I find it very ironic that the very people discussing social security are the ones that will not receive it. Their plan is solvent as they can divert it into their own private account.
Congressman do not pay into social security as also the federal government employees as they have their own private account.
If I can remember when John Kerry was out campaigning he said he would like to see all Americans in the same plan as the congressmen and women. Also He said he would like the american citizens the opportunity to have the same health care plan. So what is the difference who says it. It was said.
posted on March 10, 2005 08:21:04 PM new
No Classy...I wasn't referring to your big ass.... I was once again correcting Libra's spelling of the word huge... she insists on spelling it hugh...and it bugs the snot out of me...
posted on March 11, 2005 06:16:44 PM newI was just watching c-span and I find it very ironic that the very people discussing social security are the ones that will not receive it. Their plan is solvent as they can divert it into their own private account.
Then why are you and Linda discussing it. Your SS will not be effected by the Bush plan either.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
