It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Republicans lash out at Democrats, AARP

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Republicans trying to pass new Social Security Reform are finding roadblocks. The Democrats and AARP do not support the new SS Reform and are rallying against it. Tom Delay, the House Majority Leader lased out at democrats refusing to negotiate with republicans.
 



www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - Republican Congressional leaders, frustrated that President George W. Bush's plan to restructure Social Security is failing to win widespread support, lashed out on Wednesday at Democrats and the country's largest retiree organization, who oppose it.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, criticized Democrats for refusing to negotiate with Republicans.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Democrats and the AARP are fighting against the new laws. The AARP represent people over 55, and one would think they have the best intrest of the people in the agenda. But as Tom Delay points out the AARP is selling mutual funds to senoir citizens while telling them privatizing Social Security is to risky.

Related News Links:
www.columbiatribune.com
www.businessweek.com




posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Its sad that the Bush Administration actually had money to fix social security to start with, a $2.5 trillion nest egg left by the clinton administration. Now that moneys gone since the Bush Administration in their first time spent like a drunken sailor. Did they spend this money purposefully so that they could try and push through privatization legislation of SS?? only time will tell...

For all the bad things the right can say about Clinton he was the best fiscal conservative in the white house for over a decade. The administration knew the deficit was a huge problem and they were doing the responsible thing in tackling it.

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 2-3-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
It's very simple if the reform pass we will lose 40 percent of our social security, that will include people that will have not time to do any investment because is to late.

Out of the back investment or no is 40 percent that will be cut.

Then the administration does not tell either from where the initial loan to set the personal accounts are going to come from, speculations are that the government is counting with China investments for that.

Also young people even when they will benefit in the long run, is other problems that will arise in our ever changing economy, if you can invest your own money during your worlking years, then you will not need SS to back you up in your all age.

But for those that will never hold a job long enough to pay for enough social security they still will lose 40.

The government wants to paint a picture of rich retirement accounts in your old age for the young, but the older generation knows better.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Yup. You're granny's gay, and grandpa spits on soldiers.

Not really. But sadly that's what's being pushed by Republican front groups now in social security reform disinformation campaigns.

Search for the up to the minute scuttlebutt as this is developing.

But Morons.org (appropriately) has a current piece on the lobbying efforts of the front group USA NEXT.

Here's more with the captured "test" ad they ran.



I realize these groups are always a presumed "arm's length" from accountable sources, but Rove could be wearing a sandwich board with this ad and some would still defend the Republican noise machine as unaccountable for it's own doings.

I'm all for compromise with reasonable people, and getting along with all for that matter, but I seriously see no good here. No point whatsoever. Just evil. Neocon evil.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

as posted by James the Lesser
...and one would think they have the best intrest of the people in the agenda.


You don't really believe that garbage do you? Haven't spoken to Art Linkletter lately, have ya? Ask him what he thinks about the AARP.


The only agenda that the AARP has its own, not the best interests of those who are AARP members. Don't think so, might want to read this:
Quit the AARP


--snip--

In attacking Bush's proposal, AARP defenders might say the group is only doing its job — standing up for the interests of its members. Nonsense. The Bush proposal wouldn't touch anyone 55 years or older, and thus leaves the vast majority of AARP members undisturbed. What the AARP is advocating for is not the financial well being of its members so much as an ideological vision of an entitlement state that limits individual choice and emphasizes governmental dependence.

This is the only reason a seniors organization would go to such lengths to oppose personal savings accounts as part of Social Security for young people, who aren't AARP members now and would probably be better off for having the accounts when they are old enough to become members. In other words, by opposing the accounts and proposing other fixes to the system — such as tax increases and benefit reductions — the AARP is essentially doing nothing to protect its current members at the same time it hurts its future members.

--snip--

But the AARP is not going unchallenged. A new conservative seniors group called USA Next is ripping into the AARP, riding a wave of publicity from its (rather ham-fisted) attack on the AARP on the issue of gay marriage (an AARP affiliate in Ohio opposed an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment in the state). USA Next is making its case not just on political grounds, but with a dagger aimed at the heart of the AARP's appeal — cheaper discounts on travel!


Seen this yet? AARP - Big Government Billionaires

Or these?
SENIORS GROUP IN FACE-OFF
AARP Invests in Hypocrisy

IMHO, the AARP, like unions, have outlived their usefulness.

Going to be an interesting battle and one that many of you should be paying great attention to being it involves you.




seekerof

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
IMHO, the AARP, like unions, have outlived their usefulness.

Going to be an interesting battle and one that many of you should be paying great attention to being it involves you.

seekerof

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Seekerof]


I can not agree with you more specially our age group, the ones in their 40s and fifties are the ones to be the most impacted by this reform.

If you have not invested by this time on your own you still will get a cut on your social security anyway.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The AARP has become a reactionary far-left liberal action group which raises money from unsuspecting seniors to fund it's radical agenda, it doesn't have anyone's best interests in mind except those who drank the progressives' Kool Aid.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
So typical of this gaggle of NEO-CON trash. Anyone who doesnt agree with them is labeld as evil. Gays, Commies, Pinos, ect. Its a great tactic. Now that they have the gaggle of i nsane right wing religous nutcases, they know the magic words to rile of their rabid base, to threaten and badger the enemies of NEO Conservatives. Label with sinful and immoral titles, and youll have the god squad rallying up in angry protest. Senior citizens will be told from the pulpit to pull out of AARP, to not associate themselves with a commie organization that likes gays.

And of coruse, their anger and the liberals in congress will always be attacked for not going along with their NEO-Con agenda. So of course, the NEO COns now have the ultimate tool at their hands: religous and "patriotic fevor" which will translate into a new type of persecution and oppresion of all their enemies and people who might question it.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
So typical of this gaggle of NEO-CON trash. Anyone who doesnt agree with them is labeld as evil. Gays, Commies, Pinos, ect. Its a great tactic. Now that they have the gaggle of i nsane right wing religous nutcases, they know the magic words to rile of their rabid base, to threaten and badger the enemies of NEO Conservatives. Label with sinful and immoral titles, and youll have the god squad rallying up in angry protest. Senior citizens will be told from the pulpit to pull out of AARP, to not associate themselves with a commie organization that likes gays.

And of coruse, their anger and the liberals in congress will always be attacked for not going along with their NEO-Con agenda. So of course, the NEO COns now have the ultimate tool at their hands: religous and "patriotic fevor" which will translate into a new type of persecution and oppresion of all their enemies and people who might question it.



Gee, no spin there



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Hmmm, apparently, it is just not the Republicans only. Seems there are also some congressional Democrats doing so.


Republicans attacked the AARP as well as congressional Democrats on Wednesday as they struggled to build momentum behind President Bush's call for personal investment accounts under Social Security.

The AARP, which claims 35 million members age 50 and over, is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after a closed-door meeting with the GOP rank and file.

He called the group's opposition to personal accounts irresponsible and hypocritical, adding that it sells mutual funds to its own membership.

In response, an AARP spokesman said the organization is "opposed to the central notion of trying to improve Social Security solvency by taking money out of Social Security."

"Even the administration has acknowledged that taking money out of Social Security does nothing to solve the solvency problem," said the spokesman, David Certner. He also said AARP encouraged its membership to invest in mutual funds "in addition to Social Security."

DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert also criticized congressional Democrats, who are virtually united in opposition to Bush's plans. "The party of no," Hastert called them.

DeLay Criticizes AARP on Its Social Security Stance
*will require registration to access article*

No matter, I'm sensing a coming 'compromise' on this issue/matter.




seekerof



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Funny... the tripe about the AARP being the evil liberal empire trying to get granny to "go gay" didn't emerge until USANEXT went out and hired the political consultants behind the Swift Boat Vets.


In a telling quote in the NYTimes article listed below, a USANext spkoesman said that they are "taking pains to distance themselves from the White House." Why would that be? Wouldn't want to be accused of being hit men hired to take out the AARP for political purposes, eh? I think hiring the Swift Boat Vets makes their role pretty obvious.

I wonder how long it will take before news emerges of more paid-off journalists hired by the White House to shill for private accounts...

nytimes.com...

Oh, and BTW, if the AARP is a "reactionary far-left liberal action group which raises money from unsuspecting seniors to fund it's radical agenda" (which is entirely not true, BTW--why did they come out and support Bush for Medicare reform?), USANEXT is something far, far worse.

They actually are a right-wing political action group that spends the bulk of it's members money on ads representing corporate interests instead of for services. More on USANEXT below...
www.citizen.org...



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
"But the AARP is not going unchallenged. A new conservative seniors group called USA Next is ripping into the AARP, riding a wave of publicity from its (rather ham-fisted) attack on the AARP on the issue of gay marriage (an AARP affiliate in Ohio opposed an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment in the state). USA Next is making its case not just on political grounds, but with a dagger aimed at the heart of the AARP's appeal — cheaper discounts on travel! "


There was a story about this on our news the other night, they pointed out the connection with the swift boat crew also..... it also claimed that they opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment in Ohio because it went beyond homosexual couples and effected heterosexual couples also...
well, this interested me, so I did some checking...and well....

"COLUMBUS -- Although state Issue 1 is often referred to as the "gay marriage amendment," its immediate impact may be more on the ability of public entities to offer domestic partner benefits, say those concerned with the Nov. 2 ballot measure.
The proposed amendment would place into the constitution a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
That's already the case under Ohio's current anti-gay marriage law, on top of a similar federal law. Each law also says Ohio doesn't have to recognize gay marriages performed in states such as Massachusetts.
The second sentence of the Ohio amendment forbids a legal status for unmarried individuals "that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." "
www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com...


He and others noted some potential legal ramifications:
• Ending domestic partnership benefits offered by private companies. Attorney General Jim Petro believes that if Issue 1 passes, the threat of lawsuits could pressure companies into ending benefits for unmarried couples.
Spindelman also wonders if a company can offer domestic partner benefits if it is contracted by the state. "Can the state hire them without sanctioning that company's policy?"
Chris Bryant, associate law professor at the University of Cincinnati, called it a "gray area." He said the amendment also leaves the door open for the state to require that anyone doing business with Ohio not offer domestic partner benefits.
Strasser also noted that even if companies keep offering domestic partner benefits, courts cannot grant any legal status to anything that "approximates" marriage.
• Loss of certain rights for unmarried couples, such as property rights, power of attorney, hospital visitation and inheritance.
These have been a particular concerns raised by the AARP, and Bryant called them "very legitimate concerns."
"It's not clear, say, if power of attorney will be invalidated under this, but it seems to me to at least be plausible," he said. Questions over visitation rights could be raised, particularly in state-run hospitals, he said.
Not everyone agrees
www.enquirer.com...

sounds to me that it might not only be denying some rights of homosexual couples, but taking away rights that some heterosexual couples are enjoying now.

and then there is this:

"Darnell Forte is accused of slapping a woman he lived with. To try to get a domestic violence charged overturned, his lawyer has raised a wider issue, claiming a conflict between Ohio's new constitutional amendment defining marriage and the state's domestic violence law.
Opponents of the amendment banning gay marriage, among the nation's broadest, feared the measure would be used to try to curtail all sorts of rights for unmarried people, and they say the domestic violence case in Cleveland is one such attempt.
"What's at stake goes beyond the issue of gay marriage, it's whether or not a state constitutional amendment can strip Ohio people of basic protections," said Heather Sawyer, senior counsel in Chicago for Lambda Legal, a national gay rights organization."
www.woio.com...

and maybe endangering some people in the process?
seems to me that now, all they have to do is put a little more "God" into the idea of what a marriage is, and well, all of us women can stand in front of God and Man and swear obedience to our husband....

maybe aarp had good reason to oppose the ban?



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I joined the AARP as soon as I was old enough. (50). I immediately cancelled my membership when I read their material and learned that they are nothing but a left-wing shill. It infuriates me to still get mail touting their recommended "special offers" for overpriced goods and services. Now I simply write on the order forms "AARP is a left-wing shill" and mail it in. I hope they get the message sooner rather than later.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I am going to tell you a littler secret, I am in a traditional die hard Republican state, but since the Bush agenda on the reform of SS, we have all kind of conservative elderly and disable groups calling for people to stop the reform.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
..............
For all the bad things the right can say about Clinton he was the best fiscal conservative in the white house for over a decade. The administration knew the deficit was a huge problem and they were doing the responsible thing in tackling it.


You are right, he tried to make as much money as possible , even if it meant that Clinton had to sell military secrets from the US to the Chinese...and allowed them to steal other secrets to keep them quiet for the "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy under Clinton's watch...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Harry Reid a soft-spoken lawmaker with a punch
By James Kuhnhenn

Knight Ridder Newspapers


"Asked Thursday his reaction to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's insistence this week that Social Security must be transformed, preferably along lines urged by Bush, Reid replied:

"I'm not a big Greenspan fan. ... I voted against him two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington," Reid said on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics."


Reid complained that Greenspan had decried budget deficits when Bill Clinton was president but he doesn't criticize Bush for turning a federal budget surplus he inherited from Clinton into trillions of new debt. "

www.realcities.com...

------------------------------------

So, well, let's see.....

I think it was Mon. or Tues. that ABC let out the story about the swift boat crew taking on the AARP......a former ally of Bush, when it came to overhauling medicaid....and mentioning the reason AARP opposed the gay ban marriage, they say there's a possibility of it taking away rights that heterosexual couples were enjoying now.
Then a day or two later, we had Frist and other Rebublicans started saying that they didn't think they had the support to get it done and that it would probably have to wait...
Then Greenspan (the one who, if you believe the rumors, puchased his reappointment by keeping interest rates low, even though they should of started raising a long time ago),. speaks up and emphasizes the importance of it going thru this year

Then all of a sudden Frist and the rest jump back in line, marching to the beating drums of the Bush Camp.

Ya know, I can't help but feel there isn't a bit of coercion here or something. IF a plan is worthy to be considered, then why do they have to continually keep degrading the reputation of not only half of our population (those evil liberals), but some of our institutions and political candidates that stands in their way?

God, just honestly give us the facts and the plan to fix the problem, and well, let we the people, vote it up or down....
All the politicians are doing is showing us the reasons why we shouldn't be trusting them to do even the simplests of tasks, let alone something as complex as the social security issue.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by drfunk
..............
For all the bad things the right can say about Clinton he was the best fiscal conservative in the white house for over a decade. The administration knew the deficit was a huge problem and they were doing the responsible thing in tackling it.


You are right, he tried to make as much money as possible , even if it meant that Clinton had to sell military secrets from the US to the Chinese...and allowed them to steal other secrets to keep them quiet for the "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy under Clinton's watch...


This has got to be the most pathetic attack on Clinton.


Whats next, Hillary's a lesbian?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join