Dems plan to attack GOP on Social Security

[babylonsister]

Smart move!


Dems plan to attack GOP on Social Security
By Walter Alarkon - 08/09/10 09:12 PM ET


House Democrats are planning more than 100 events around this week’s anniversary of Social Security to attack Republicans who want to reform the popular entitlement.

Democrats and interest groups on the left have scheduled “birthday parties” and other events to highlight Saturday’s 75th anniversary of the program signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt.

A Democratic leadership aide said Republicans are “highly vulnerable” on both Social Security and Medicare.

“This is a party that said they want Medicare to wither on the vine and want to privatize Social Security,” the aide said.

Democrats took a beating last summer from seniors worried about the healthcare reform bill. They’re hoping to turn the tables on Republicans this August by convincing seniors the GOP is putting Social Security at risk.

“What Democrats have to do is regain our advantage with an important voting bloc, because the misinformation run by Republicans in the important healthcare debate obscured views on these issues,” the aide said.

Some of the events will be held with the AARP, the lobbying group for seniors, and the Alliance for Retired Americans, a group backed by unions, said Emily Barocas, a spokeswoman for the House Democratic Caucus.


more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/113429-house-dems-are-hoping-to-turn-tables-on-the-gop-with-social-security-push

[jaxx]

1. Give em hell.

It's for damn sure they've got it coming.

[doc03]

2. I have a question: It seems all Republicans I talk to

hate the AARP, they claim it is run by the (teachers union). Is there any truth to that? Did the teachers union start it or sponsor it in any way? I keep hearing that and don't know how to respond I figure like everything else they say it is just more bullshit but I don't know.

[babylonsister]

3. Here's the history; seems it was founded and evolved

from the NRTA; why that is a problem, I don't know. Anyway, here's what wiki has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP


AARP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, is a United States-based non-governmental organization and interest group, started by Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus. According to its mission statement,<1> it is "a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people age 50 and over ... dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age," which "provides a wide range of unique benefits, special products, and services for our members." AARP operates as a non-profit advocate for its members and as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States, and it also sells insurance, investment funds and other financial products. AARP claims over 40 million members,<2> making it one of the largest membership organizations in the United States.
Contents



Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus founded AARP in 1958. AARP evolved from the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA), which Andrus had established in 1947 to promote her philosophy of productive aging, and in response to the need of health insurance for retired teachers. After ten years, Andrus opened the organization to all Americans over 50, creating AARP. Today, NRTA is a division within AARP. According to Andy Rooney, AARP was established by insurance salesman Leonard Davis in 1958, after he met Ethel Percy Andrus. According to critics, until the 1980s AARP was controlled by businessman Leonard Davis, who promoted its image as a non-profit advocate of retirees in order to sell insurance to members.<3> In the 1990s, the United States Senate investigated AARP's non-profit status, with Republican Senator Alan Simpson, then chairman of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy, questioning the organization's tax exempt status in congressional hearings. These investigations did not reveal sufficient evidence to change the organization's status.<4>

The organization was originally named American Association of Retired Persons, but to reflect that its focus was no longer American retirees, in 1999 it officially changed its name to just "AARP" (pronounced one letter at a time, "A-A-R-P").<5> AARP no longer requires that members be retired, just that they be over 50 years old. Additionally, AARP does not extend full membership privileges to applicants who are in fact retired, but not over 50, calling further into question AARP's true commitment to retired persons.

[doc03]

4. It matters to Republicans because a union had something

to do with it. Thanks but that confuses me even more I belong to the AARP but from what I read rather than being an advocate for retired people it is more of an insurance company. Up until last year I got my Homeowners and Auto insurance through the AARP from Hartford. Last year I had hail damage and needed my roof replaced, all my neighbors around me had their roofs replaced and paid for immediately. Hartford put me through hell before they paid my claim. First of all they sent an adjuster that refused to even go on the roof to look at the damage, he just stood in the driveway and said I don't see anything. It took me two months of arguing long distance before they sent another adjuster out and I finally got the damage repaired. I canceled all my insurance from the AARP/Hartford. But I still pay my dues to AARP thinking they will lobby to protect SS and Medicare, am I wrong?

[joeglow3]

5. You are right about the insurance part.

It seems about 90% of what I see from them is advertising of their insurance products.

[philly_bob]

6. Sadly, another American institution corrupted in Reagan-Bush era. (nt)

[ProSense]

7. Good. They really need to address Social Security

Benefits need to be protected. Yesterday Krugman mentioned the millions of people who are not allowed to participate. That seems so wrong.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. The Republicans would happily get rid of social security

they say there are too many old people and the number is increasing and the government can't afford it. Then how come the government can afford wars?

Key phrase in November election - The Republicans want to privatize everything. A private company will come and put you house fire out if you pay them but there is no guarantee they are going to show up. Can you imagine paying to borrow each book from the library - cost several hundred dollars per year? I think people should wake up.

[BlueIdaho]

9. But, Democrats want to destroy Social Security...

I read it on DU so it must be true...

[tomp]

10. just because dems say they're going to attack repubs on soc sec....

....doesn't mean dems are not going to attack soc sec.

you read but you don't understand.

[SunsetDreams]

11. Just because it says so

On DU, doesn't mean it's fact. It's all based on assumption.
It takes 14 members of the Commission on Deficits, to even make a recommendation. They have to agree.
Even if somehow those 4 members(which caused the assumption) based on statements they've made in the past, were to somehow get the other's to agree, it has to go through Congress for a vote, and then to a Democratic President, to sign off on. That's if you can get enough Congress to vote YAY. I seriously doubt that, it's failed in the past, and it will fail again. (If it even gets that far)
There are 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans on the Commission. Obama appointed 6 out of the 18, so he didn't "stack" the commission, as some like to claim.
No Democratic President is going to attack Social Security.

All those hurdles, to go through, I don't see it happening.

[SpartanDem]

16. People also forget that it's looking at the entire federal budget

the commission isn't just looking at SS.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomp]

21. p.s.: when my benefits get cut, you'll pay me the difference, right? nt

[BlueIdaho]

12. Please help me then.

Can you point out the page and paragraph numbers in the commission report that specifically recommend for (a) raising the retirement age to 70, (b) reducing Social Security payouts, and or (c) the dissolution of Social Security.

Thanks.

[tomp]

13. your response only shows further your lack of understanding....

....indeed, it suggests an inability to understand.

why don't you think, if that is one of your capabilities, about my statement for a while.

perhaps your next response won't be so lame.

[BlueIdaho]

15. Insults?

You think you will persuade me by insulting me, demeaning me, and attacking me?

Respectfully, I require proof, not assumptions. Please don't tell me what you think, teill me what you know.

[tomp]

17. your response was an insult to intelligent people. try again. nt

[BlueIdaho]

18. Still no facts only attacks.

No substance? Sadly, only smoke and mirrors. Again, tell me what you now, not what you think.

[tomp]

19. you're just being silly.

i repeat: your posts are insults to intelligent people everywhere. i'm not kidding.

i instructed you to go back and think about what i said. i can't help it if you won't or can't
do that. until you make your first reasonable response, we'll get nowhere.

[flamingdem]

14. A good point of attack against repukes

Especially with Boehner being praised by the MSM for wanting to push back retirement to age 70.