That position by AARP’s leadersheep suggests its compensation is too high and that it has been working inside the Beltway too long. It is no longer representing its members’ interests, it is protecting its Beltway status.

I dropped those bastards about 15 years ago. They are nothing but an insurance agency. Greedy buggers.

This explains AARP’s silence during the last 12 months. When Simpson, or Bowles, or Laura Meckler of the WSJ would say AARP is on board, and we would write to them to check to see if this was true of AARP at that time, there would be silence. When AARP’s former CEO, Bill Novelli advocated for benefit cuts and reforms to Social Security, we wrote to AARP to ask if his point of view represented AARP’s point of view, but we would hear silence in return. This explains those awful moments of silence. There is an article up at the NYT front page now with lots of negative comments in reaction to AARP’s leading the way on SS benefit cuts in the current D.C. deficit reduction hoopla.

I have read over a dozen articles about this issue and none of them say what is really going on:

AARP is publicly supporting Social Security AND Privately telling Congress it is o.k. to cut the program.

What reprehensible pieces of shit.

Joined 8 years ago because I was having a bad time trying to afford health insurance and wanted to try the supposed lower rates through some plan they were touting. After requesting and receiving information, I joined AARP and discovered then that their insurance was not available in my state. Never paid dues again, but they still deluge me with offers, junk mail, and requests to pick up my membership again.

I think there were probably carrots AND sticks used to flip AARP. The Tea-GOPers did haul them up on investigation a couple months back.

But I don’t care what flipped them, just that they flipped. I’ll film my card burning later. (Yes I’m only 49, but Belch already turned 50 and I joined him as a joke! LOL! Anyhow, partners get cards too.)

Jerks.

Mods, please check the AARP petition. You left out the word “more” near the end in the sentence “…now than ever….” They will laugh at the petition and say that there is no need to pay attention if the petitioners can’t write correctly.

This is the green light for the assholes in DC to sharpen their knives for the entitlement programs. Every dollar they cut is a dollar more they can spend on their campaign contributors.

Whores, knob polishing whores.

I don’t know how the AARP became the “spokespeople”
for the over 50 crowd. They’re just a glorified insurance agency with a frightening access to everyone’s mailing addresses. How do they know when everybody in the Country turns 50 and how to send them that grim invitation to join up?

The only change to Soc Security that should happen is the lifting of the yearly cap at $107,000. Sales tax doesn’t stop after people spend $107,000, why does the social security premium? Why is the majority of rich people’s income untaxed in this system? They get the highest benefits and live the longest.

Where are the Gray Panthers? They are the ones that used to fight for the oldsters and everyone’s eventual older age? They, not AARP, have always been the sincere conduit for protest. They, at one point, were really powerful.

I’m looking up and joining my local chapter of the Gray Panthers. Hopefully they’ll be organizing & growing their membership
over this.

In 2008 AARP Services received $652,000,000 in royalties from insurance companies, PLUS $120,000,000 in advertising. And to think that millions of individuals pay “dues” to be members of this organization. When was the last time you actually paid to be on a marketer’s mailing list? What a scam!

AARP has officially reversed its course and will be no longer working to protect Social Security.

Has the AARP decided it no longer needs to exist? What do they think they’ll be good for if they stand by as Social Security goes the way of the dodo?

They don’t wait till we turn 50 anymore. I get stuff from the AARP.

The only change to Soc Security that should happen is the lifting of the yearly cap at $107,000. Sales tax doesn’t stop after people spend $107,000, why does the social security premium? Why is the majority of rich people’s income untaxed in this system? They get the highest benefits and live the longest.

brillant!

hahahhahhhahahaha

Wretched, but not unexpected. All for a seat under the table. This negotiating tactic mimics Obama’s on healthcare? Appeasement. How’s Part D workin’ out for ya? Now here is where the Teabaggers might be of some use, but instead I suppose it will be, “Hand’s off my Medicare. Have my Social Security instead.”

Don’t get me started on the AARP. They were the ones who caved on the Bushcare Part D. Of course they didn’t want anyone to know they would be getting a huge benefit from the deal in the form of the insurance plans they offer and the amount of money they’d make on the insurance side of it.

They are an organization that looks after their own money interests not for retired people.

“What do they think they’ll be good for if they stand by as Social Security goes the way of the dodo?”

They’ll be good for getting high paying jobs in industry as payback.

The same goes for AARP and Obamacare – Medicare Part D was a mere trifle compared to Obamacare.

I’m a living breathing capitalist myself.

I’m subsidizing the self-important idiots who
claim they want unfettered business but then
it turns out they really want it rigged
where they can’t lose (and otherwise face
no real competition, own our representatives,
and can name their premium or tell us to shove
off if there’s a chance we won’t simply stay
perfectly healthy, in the case of the health insurance
cartel execs.)

AARP is halfway similar to myself: they in fact
are highly mercantile, selling insurance.

Where we now part is: they seem perfectly O.K.
with a consummately casino economy.

I’m not.

https://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon

Maybe some progressive website should organize a boycott of AARP products including people canceling their existing policies and memberships. Put these fuckers out of business for starters and maybe members of congress will see the light.

I don’t know who you are, but I gotta ask: What’s up with the black background at your site?

There should be some sort way to force a correction.

Sue for Misrepresentation. False Advertising.

I agree. I’m an old guy wearing glasses and that background makes me dizzy. I’d like to look around a bit.

I always thought of the AARP not as an insurance agency, but as an advocacy group. Not so? Not so anymore? What? Do they only collect royalties from insurance companies? Don’t they also collect fees from their members? Their current members may not all care about what happens to Social Security, but all their future members do.

I signed the petition and I am sharing it with others….we are on on own guys….

“Sales tax doesn’t stop after people spend $107,000, why does the social security premium?”

Because when you BUY something, you get a benefit from it. When you make over $107k and keep paying SS taxes, your benefit doesn’t go up. In fact, the more money you make, the less of the SS tax you you get back in benefits. So this is just another confiscation from those who have to give those who don’t.

Nicely stated, good job.

I am 67 and I have already quit AARP. My reason may seem minor, but I think it speaks not only to “the latest” from AARP but to all that “we seniors” are apt to face from similar “seniors” organizations. When I joined AARP, my “voting address” was in California, even though I had been an “overseas voter” (living in Ireland) for many years before. But, shortly thereafter, I went to Columbus, Ohio to work for several months as a full-time volunteer in the Obama Campaign. And, I was (and, in a certain sense, still am) in Ohio long enough to be legally eligible to vote in Columbus. So, I voted in person in Columbus in 2008 and again in 2010, because I went back to Columbus to work for several months for the Dems that year too (and, I intend to do the same in 2012). So, I e-mailed AARP to let them know about my address change several times, but they just kept sending me “California stuff”, until I told them to drop my name altogether, which, at least, they did do.

And I have had similar problems with the Irish equivalent of AARP, “Older and Bolder”, and that one cost me money. And, I have also written to Older and bolder, BEGGING them to organize demonstrations against the previous government and against the European Union, both of which were/are “Neoliberal” (and our supposed “new” government is also Neoliberal and the Unions, which were once among the most militantly Socialist in Europe are now “hangdogs” too).

But, to return to the subject of “seniors” organizations, in general; they all seem to think that we are all bedridden, so they make policy without any real democratic consultation from us. But, I marched about 1000 miles against the Iraq War and I outworked people 1/3 my age during the campaigns in 2008 and 2010, and I know that there are plenty of “seniors” on both sides of the Atlantic, who can do the same. What we really need is something organized like a proper Labor Union, for retirees and other “older” people, that is with proper democratic elections and votes on things like marches and boycotts.

Social security is on a collision course one way or the other. Either taxes will rise or benefits will be cut, there’s really no other way around it. There are 3 possible scenarios, 2 of which are generational theft:

1) Taxes will rise: Only the currently working and far future retirees will bear the burden.

2) Benefits will be cut in the far future: Same as above except the burden will be lower benefits

3) Benefits are cut now (People now and in the future will share the burden of lower benefits)

Which one is the most fair?

Lift the cap past $107,000 of earnings.

Aside from that, your frame is false. SocSec pays out 100% benefits till ’37, you know, 26 years from now. That’s projections with the economy in the state that it’s in now, not with any improvement.

And SocSec has never contributed one dime to the deficit, ever, as by law it can’t.

AARP is crying.. Just got an E-Mail from them:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security
Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits
WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:
“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.
“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.
“Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables. Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might – individually or in different combinations – impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.
“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.
“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.
“AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.
“Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs. And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans.”
For more information, visit http://www.aarp.org

The Backlash has just begun!! Don’t fuck with SS, Medicare OR Medical unless you are increasing benefits for those who most need these benefits!!

Just sharing my minimal knowledge, AARP offers a Medicare supplemental insurance plan to its members – from United Healthcare. I, too, always thought AARP was an advocacy group for seniors, but with so many other former advocacy groups (for a variety of interests from the environment to LGBT) selling out, I’m not surprised to see AARP among them.

“The Wall Street Journal” reported? Murdoch’s new toy, which he turned into the print edition of Faux News? Here’s what AARP has to say about the report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 17, 2011

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security
Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits

WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:

“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.

“Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables. Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might – individually or in different combinations – impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.

“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.

“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.

“AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation’s bills.

“Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs. And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans.”

For more information, visit http://www.aarp.org

Who do I believe? The below story from AARP has caused me to wonder if I should research every story behind the many petitions I have signed on behalf of FireDogLake. This from the homepage of AARP:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security
Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 17, 2011
Contact: Media Relations
(202) 434-2560

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security

Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits

WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:

“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.

MORE AT:

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-06-2011/aarp-has-not-changed-its-position-on-social-security.html

Since the only cuts that are being discussed are those for future retirees, raising taxes on those working now will secure Social Security for those same workers when they retire. The answer to your question is fairly obvious.

Of course, the real problem here (aside from a rejection of social insurance among a segment of elites) is that forty years of wage stagnation have pushed too much income outside of the reach of SS taxes. Since that wage stagnation was a product of public policies and did not reflect productivity stagnation, having those who made the most pay their fair share makes perfect sense as well.

Those who make the generational theft argument are simply ignorant of how this all works. Social Security and Medicare are a compact among all citizens, not something one class of citizens does for another.

AARP has always been primarily a for-profit insurance sales business. They started in 1958 and have always been based on the largest conflict-of-interest I have ever seen.

OK…there are many smarter people than myself on this thread. I started working at age 12 (1957), and I have paid into SS fund until I was prematurely retired in 2006. Excuse me, but this is not an entitlement, I paid for it as required by law.As I so far understand it, SS $’s have been used in the “general fund”, and now, they say it is bankrupt?
Clearly, AARP is not going to stand with Seniors, as they are now giving us up to the wolves. I agree that they are just another “for profit” organization. Personally, I need to shred at least two solicitations a week from them, and it is quite boring.
Time for all of us to forsake AARP. They are using us.

Regarding the petition, it would have been nice to have a box for “Have you ever been a member of AARP?” I was, not since the Medicate Part B betrayal.

3 WAYS TO SAY: AARP I LOVE THEE, NOT

1. Time for S’More roasts over bonfires of AARP cards.
Those were great photo opps from 2003 and 2004 of old folks protesting the so-called ‘premier senior organization’ throwing them under the bus on health reform and Bush 2′s dreams of killing Social Security and transferring billions to Big Pharma.

I loved seeing news photos every couple weeks of seniors quitting AARP chapters, setting up alternative regional advocacy groups and clearly tearing a civil disobedience page from those filthy hippies who burned draft cards in the 1960s.

2. Cannot change AARP’s Greed Genes; Remember its pathetic diversion campaign dubbed Divided We Fail?

AARP’s prime directive was ALWAYS to protect sales and revenue from its own private insurance and private drug plans. So its leaders decided the core problem with health and retirement security in the U.S. was . . . wait for it . . . A LACK OF BIPARTISAN SPIRIT IN POLITICS!

AARP launched its pathetic Divided We Fail campaign, complete with bucking donkey and hulking elephant logo on T-shirts they snookered members into wearing at State Fairs and ‘activist’ meetings.

AARP Marketing got bendover politicians to moan on cue that we would not have all these awful problems if ‘We could all just get along.’ A spirit of bipartisanship (Read: Feeding the Bush-Cheney-WingNut GOP Dragon everything it demanded) would magically solve medical bankruptcies (over 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies by 2004-05).

Magic bipartisanship would fix our alleged broke, broken and fraud-prone bloated Medicare/Social Security programs.

Compromise would put overpriced unaffordable prescription drugs in the right hands (just not the hands of fixed income seniors, and NOT by letting the Federal gov buy the same Rx cheaper in bulk, domestically or from another country. Cuz you can’t trust them Canadians) etc.

But that was only Public Slogan Caca. AARP’s real agenda was to drain off all senior activism, energy and anger at being thrown under the bus. (Medicare Part D $18 Billion giveaway to Big Pharmaceutical, anyone?) AARP PR shills organized ‘Issues’ Study Groups and Painful Personal Storytelling web sites and Fake Grassroots Organizing . . . all bleating pathetically for more bipartisan compromise on All The Above problems.

Member energy, angst and activism went NOWHERE. AARP was last man standing with its own profitable – and still private – insurance and drug lines.

And, yes, it was deliberate AARP strategy; total PR Horse Puckies: I worked my way up the feedlot chain of PR shills at AARP in D.C., asking why they thought negotiating with an obstinate Devil was the best advocacy for senior Americans? Didn’t AARP notice that Social Security-killing neocon Republicans only screeched for ‘bipartisan spirit’ when they could not call all the shots?

Could America’s ‘premier senior organization’ be any more cream ‘o wheat invertebrate than burbling Divided We Fail???

AARP answered in Classic PR Shill terms by answering the question I did not ask: We do not endorse political candidates. ?? WTF?

3. Don’t waste that paper blizzard of AARP member solicitations by dumping it in the waste recycling bin!

The return envelopes have prepaid postage indicias. Write up 12 one-liners on why AARP is greedy and bad at its stated mission of advocating for seniors, failing to represent the true needs of older Americans. I’ve been getting one mailing per month for 15 years.

With AARP’s most recent treachery – putting Social Security back on the ddeficit hawks’ table – and the way they helped ram through Medicare Part D Prescription Heist For Fun and Profit, you should have no trouble finding 12 reasons to tell AARP to frack off.

They have to pay for every piece of mail returned to them in those prepaid envelopes. So, they paid for your negative opinion. It’s only fair.

No, I wouldn’t exhaustively research EVERY story, but I WOULD use just a smigen of skepticism, when an article by the Reich Wing “Journal” foretells the caving in of one of the elderly’s core advocacy groups!

(DUH!)

AARP is definitely an advocacy group, and their offered insurance deals are just that: deals that you can’t get by going directly to the companies. They are able to offer such deals because they bargain en-masse for lower rates.

The tripe put out by AARP’s detractors is intended to separate you from supporting AARP in return for what they do for us.

So do you side with the proven advocacy group, or with the Rich who want to deep-six it out of their way?

You are a FOOL to take the Murdock-owned “Journal’s” word against AARP’s.

Why are you questioning FDL’s integrity…? You do realize that that mistaken ‘article’ that CEO Rand alludes to was a Wall Street Journal article…? Right…? 8-(

sure you can take AARP’s word for it. i mean, why on earth would they want you to believe otherwise?