Posted on 01/17/2005 12:44:45 AM PST by kattracks
THE AARP's new ad cam paign strips the debate over Social Security re form down to its core tension: One generation of future retirees vs. the next.The Social Security debate has always threatened to devolve into an intergenerational feud — for the problem is this: In two decades, if Social Security isn't overhauled, a shrinking class of young and middle-aged workers will have to pay higher taxes to support a growing class of retired baby boomers.
[snip]
This month, the AARP — the lobbying group for Americans over 50 — came out against President Bush's plan to allow workers to invest some Social Security taxes in personal accounts. The group ran a full-page ad in 60 newspapers to make this point: "If we feel like gambling, we'll play the slots."
[snip]
The AARP lobbyists haven't even seen Bush's formal proposals yet — and they're summarily rejecting them. This may be a blunder. First: The AARP may be wrong about the boomers. Senior citizens broke for Bush in the '04 election — 53 percent to 46 percent — despite Bush's emphasis on entitlement reform. An even greater percentage of younger seniors — those between 60 and 65 — voted Bush. If boomers follow their lead as they age, they'll prove the AARP got a signature issue wrong — and destroy the AARP's political clout.
Boomers should be eager to revisit Social Security with Bush — to see if they can take advantage of the improvements in stock-market investing and retirement-risk modeling that have taken place over the past 20 years.
[snip]
If some boomers want to let their retirement-insurance program collapse onto itself within their lifetimes, their children had better vote for representatives who will let them put more of their money away while they still can.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I did do something about it. I voted for George W. Bush.
As one who has maxed FICA by end of 1Q every year for the past 16, I agree. Just give it back, even w/o interest. I'll be fine without it.
____________________________________
According to the article so did the majority of seniors, so where's the "Battle"?
JUST GIVE IT BACK!!
(New battle cry. ;-D)
I am one person who does not believe that the majority of seniors belong to the AARP, and they're the er...toads...in the punchbowl of SS reform.
And I am one person who does not think that the AARP represents seniors. I think I'll go see if I can find out the membership numbers...BRB
I don't belong either.
If I had only invested the beer money in the 70s, I would be retired now and not give a rat about SS... Maybe Anheuser-Busch can add me to their retirement plan...
I fully expect SS benefits to be means tested when I retire.
Not sure that Social Security will ever be reformed. Neither side wants to lose this vote-buing Ponzi scheme.
I'll complicate matters. I'm all for ending SS, but if it comes down to screwing our elderly, I'm willing to fight a shooting war to oppose you. I want no part of your plan if that's the case.
I tried to google their membership numbers, but the figures apparently aren't available. They do seem to give out free one-year memberships to people who sign up for some of their "programs." There were a number of articles that mentioned the left-leaning policies of the AARP as a reason for its declining membership, heh-heh.
If you were 64 yrs old and had paid in your whole life, you'd be singing a totally different tune.
I'm not blaming you for it. I didn't set it up, so you can't blame me for it.
We need creative solutions to the problem, not bickering and whining.
Start setting up American based Help call centers and hire the elderly, bring back the jobs going to India.
Something.
since the elderly are getting more than they put in how is changing the system screwing them? taking away a lunch you paid for is screwing,but taking away afree lunch is not screwing.
taking away nightly early bird specials paid for by young families that can't afford to go out more than once a fortnight is only fair.
the wealthiest group age wise is the elderly, and on top of that they receive the lion's share of govt. benefits.
Some of the plans are pretty creative. Letting everyone after a certain age remain in the system "as is" and letting younger generations opt out and invest a portion of the FICA taxes is a better deal.
My parents and grandfather never believed in SS, and have planned accordingly. I know that not every can, but I was raised to never expect a handout.
i'm 42 and have already paid more into the system than current retirees.
since i'm not 64 i can't say how i'd be, nevertheless i'd still be getting a better deal than younger people who have paid a higher rate of fica than i would have paid all those working years.
perhaps if i became shameless i'd still know that i paid far less MY WHOLE LIFE than younger people and i would still know that i'd be getting more than i paid in. If i had the same moral values i have now i would sto collected at pay back time because thats all i deserve
There is a huge windfall out there, waiting for people. Goods and services that cater to an aging population will reap millions, the next Bill Gates is gonna be even richer.
Certainly, there is a kind of hypocrisy involved. People who bought there house when they were 35 for 60,000 dollars and turn around and sell it when they're 50+ for 200,000 dollars certainly profited.
But then they whine about how their grandkids are having trouble making their own mortgage payments.
America is such a fractured society these days, it's almost intolerable.
No wonder I'm somewhat of a hermit
_____________________________
That's why I left after one year.
End Socialists' Security NOW! If I'm expected to care for the elderly, then I'll gladly care for MY own parents. Others should do the same.
If children were the only means of "social security" for the family's elderly, maybe then the value of all those aborted children would begin to sink into our heads.
Those who cast themselves upon the care of government should not be surprised when government takes care of them in the manner only it sees best fit.
Actually, you were paying the real SS Tax, that's the Stupidity Tax. While you were paying in all those years, the politicos were spending your money to increase the payout to the geezers to get them to come out in droves to vote for more of YOUR money. See how stupid you were? A smart person would have led taxpayers to charge Capitol Hill with demands that they put back every dime of the money you paid in and put your name on the account so that, even with the pathetic 1.3% interest it pays back, you would have it at retirement. And when you die, your heirs could have the money you earned instead of, incredibly, the government declaring itself your beneficiary! But no, stupid citizens trusted the politicians and they looted the system, putting in IOUs obligating some future government for 11 TRILLION bucks that can never be paid back without bankrupting the country. Every politician who did this ought to be in prison, which would happen if business and industry stole their pension funds. Instead, the political thieves get re-elected until they get as senile as their constituents (Byrd, Kennedy, etc.). Now tell me why senior citizens deserve anything but our scorn after letting the criminal class in government loot the country all these decades?
One article I glanced at mentioned that 45,000 quit AARP because of their opposition to President Bush's Medicare reform, if I remember the blurb correctly (always possible I don't).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.