SS & AARP


#1

Since the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is taking a leading role in the campaign to defeat the effort to avoid the train wreck that will surely occur when the Social Security system goes broke, we should get a few things straight – both as to what the AARP is and as to the real motives of the liberal establishment’s fanatical effort to resist any and all change to the system.

First of all, everyone born before 1950 will get exactly the benefits promised. Nothing will change for them.

Secondly, in 2008, the first baby boomers will begin to retire. In 2018, the program will begin paying out more than it takes in. By 2042, the program goes bust. Either we do something now, or we face higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden drastic cuts in Social Security benefits. Perhaps a combination of the three.

Every year we delay reform of the system costs $600 billion. Ultimately, we will be stuck with an estimated $10.4 trillion.

That is something to think about the next time you hear Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer assure you that everything is just fine and anyone who ventures the slightest hint that there should be any changes harbors some kind of sadistic desire to shortchange seniors.

"…The AARP is buying full-page ads all over the country trashing the president’s effort to let you keep more of your retirement income. Therefore, because AARP has seen fit to lead this negative charge, its leaders have opened the door to scrutiny of their methods and motivations.

One of the most comprehensive exposes of AARP is to be found in Dale Van Atta’s 1998 book, “Trust Betrayed: Inside the AARP.”

Among its many findings are the following:

  • The AARP always favors tax increases.
  • When the AARP chooses between the interests of seniors and big government, big government wins every time.
  • The AARP, supposedly riding the white horse to save senior citizens, actually discriminates against them.
  • The AARP spent more than twice as much money on its posh headquarters as it spent on programs assisting the elderly.
  • Those “low-cost” deals at the AARP pharmacy are often not so “low cost.” More seniors are finding better deals at local pharmacies…"

newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/8/190621.shtml


#2

Needless to say, I will not renew my membership in AARP. Their primary purpose seems to be to hawk products from suppliers who pay them the most, not ones which offer the best deal for us poor retireees. Their stands on things political jump all over the board and they certainly don’t speak for me most of the time.

Since I will probably not be affected by any of the changes to SS currently being proposed, I have not studied it as much as perhaps I should. I assume the private accounts will be optional and that they will be locked in until a certain age, thereby preventing someone from withdrawing their funds to, say, buy a new car. Since not all will participate in this program, I think the stated effects on the stock market are grossly exaggerated. More than likely the same is true for the long term effects on the current SS system. Overall, I think the proposed changes, sketchy as they are right now, will be a very good retirement vehicle for those who choose to participate.


#3

As someone who will be 66 in a couple of weeks, my opinion of AARP is that they are a far left wing group who thinks the country owes them a guaranteed standard of living for life. They think they know more than the average American and that we are incapable of managing our own money. I knew a long time ago that SS would not support me in the style I wanted to live, so I started saving and investing. If I had been allowed to put just 25% of my SS contributions in a private account I would be much wealther now tan I am. The benefits of AARP, such as discounts on hotels and restaurants, are far outweighed by their socalistic agenda. Most of the discounts they give you are available to seniors even if you don’t belong to AARP. I did not renew my membership and have let them know why.


#4

As I recall, AARP is a front for some insurance company. It exists mainly to push its sponsors product.

I have ignored them since they sponsored a talk by Dr Ruth Westheimer - Sex for the Seniors as I recall.


#5

[quote=Joe Kelley]I have ignored them since they sponsored a talk by Dr Ruth Westheimer - Sex for the Seniors as I recall.
[/quote]

Sex for Seniors? How gross!! :slight_smile:


#6

I believe it started out as an excellent idea but has unfortunately turned into a group who has begun to take their membership and their clout in Congressional halls for granted. From what I’ve seen and read, I don’t know where the benefits they provide are not available anywhere for most anything.

Much of what they advertisie is for the more affluent group of seniors - the medical and auto insurance they offer is available in a number of other places, so from what I can gather, they lobby and as others here have mentioned, it doesn’t seem to be in the interests of their senior group but a left agenda and they never seem to take a poll or anything to see how their constitutency feels about things. I don’t get it frankly.


#7

[quote=Richardols]Sex for Seniors? How gross!! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I hope I’m still having sex when I’m a senior. I think it is beautiful, not gross. It would be sad if I couldn’t share that with my husband long into our future.

As to Lance, saying that AARP is a far left-wing Socialist group just shows what a right-wing extremist you must be!


#8

[quote=bapcathluth]I hope I’m still having sex when I’m a senior. I think it is beautiful, not gross. It would be sad if I couldn’t share that with my husband long into our future.
[/quote]

I was being sarcastic. Joe Kelley’s post said that he has ignored AARP ever since they sponsored a talk “Sex for the Seniors.” As a 63 year-old, I couldn’t see why anyone would find fault with the notion of older couples still exercising their marital privileges, so I played along with his apparent repugnance at the idea.


#9

Sorry Richardols, sarcasm sometimes doesn’t come across well on the forums without being able to hear a person’s voice.


#10

[quote=Richardols]I was being sarcastic. Joe Kelley’s post said that he has ignored AARP ever since they sponsored a talk “Sex for the Seniors.” As a 63 year-old, I couldn’t see why anyone would find fault with the notion of older couples still exercising their marital privileges, so I played along with his apparent repugnance at the idea.
[/quote]

I don’t think Dr Ruth was particularly concerned about marriage. She has a certain reputation.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.