Seniors’ Groups Slam AARP for Shift on Social Security

All, it's been a while since I've posted as my time is consumed with the job assignment I've been on since January. (I could write a small book about work ethics and the changing workforce).

Anyway last night I was channel surfing and on a PBS station a report mentioned that AARP will be promoting slight reductions in SS payments. I got in on the end of the report so please do your own research. AARP is a not a friend of the older workers. Please avoid anything to do with this scam of an organizaton -- and I used them to do my 2010 tax compilation and they made a significant income tax mistake on my state return. Also, everyone should prepare for things to stagnate or possibly worsen in 2012.

Good to see you, carlch and glad you still have your temp assignment.

Thanks for reminding me about AARP's "shifted" their position on Social Security cuts. I read that last night in several sources.

Just to make others aware of this, I am going to change the title of this thread and post an article I found in the WSJ.

Thanks again!

Seniors’ Groups Slam AARP for Shift on Social Security

Groups representing senior citizens lashed out Friday against AARP for dropping its opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

A handful of groups dedicated to preserving Social Security and other benefits for senior citizens sharply criticized the AARP’s shift at a time when lawmakers are on the hunt for ways to save money as they negotiate over raising the debt ceiling and over reducing the nation’s debt.

“What AARP has done, in our opinion, in offering up Social Security benefit cuts in order to gain access to closed-door discussions, where let’s-make-a-deal politics has become the norm, is not the way to discuss strengthening a program that touches the lives of virtually every American family,” Max Richtman, acting chief executive of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said in a conference call with reporters on Friday.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/17/seniors-groups-slam-aarp-for-shift-on-social-security/

Social Security does need to change because it will run out of money. That scares me but I doubt it will be around when I retire.

The things I think SS needs to do:

1)Increase SS taxes on those who can afford it. After a certain level they don't take out more Social Security and they should.

2)Only allow those who paid in to collect except for rare instances. I know people collecting social security on what their parents paid in and they aren't working. Also, many people receive social security though they never paid in. I've heard countless stories of drug addicts getting social security and also immigrants who came here after they retired receiving it. These cases have to be looked at individuallly.

3)Also, they need to stop taking money out to pay for other things.

Yes, I also know individuals who collect their parent's Social Security amounts - people with developmental disabilities. I worked with many - they deserve it. These people want to work, but no one will hire them because they have a disability, yet they could still do the job.

As far as drug-addicts go, I have seen that also. I agree that some do abuse the system. However, I have seen more often than not, underlying issues that were not addressed that made a person turn to illegal drugs. People suffering from bi-polar disorder often go untreated because they are mislabeled "alcoholics" or "drug-addicts". They are, but they were self-medicating. Had their mental health issues been identified, they could have been treated. Another ignored issue that leads to drug addiction and alcoholism is PTSD, which many vets suffer from.

If an immigrant has worked here and retired here, they also deserve their SS benefits when they retire. My grandfather and his family came to this country from Ireland when he was young, he worked here most most of his life, through the Great Depression, in the textile mills here in New England. He deserved his SS benefits when he retired. Don't forget, most of our grandparents and great-grandparents were "immigrants".

As far a Social Security goes - hands off my benefits! I have worked hard, paid into it and I want it there when I retire.

I have been a member of AARP since I turned 50 and took advantage of their discounts on auto insurance (which is a huge savings) and other services, but with their stance now on cutting benefits, when it is time to renew my membership next month, I will refuse.

EDIT: One factor that would help to keep SS solvent is more people paying into it. This all leads back to the urgent need for JOB CREATION to be addressed now in this country by Congress. The lack of jobs, and the amount of unemployed people have a rippling affect on all sectors of the economy. Very soon, the lack of concern and avoidance of the insufficient amount of jobs, and outsourcing, is going to have devastating repricussions on everyone.

AARP is a puppet fraud! They did the same think on healthcare! They are selling out seniors and soon to be eligible! They are doing the same thing our politicians are doing! They received millions of dollars when they changed their mind on Obamacare!

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:AARP is a puppet fraud! They did the same think on healthcare! They are selling out seniors and soon to be eligible! They are doing the same thing our politicians are doing! They received millions of dollars when they changed their mind on Obamacare!

I don't know about you, 1208, but if things keep going the way they have, I will need "Obamacare". I have had NO health coverage now for over 3 years.

I have no problem with immigrants receiving social security if they paid in. However, I've seen many who never paid and received it which is wrong. I have no idea how they received it but they did. My paternal grandmother was British never became a citizen and received ss because she paid in.

Those with development disabilities should receive assistance. Drug addicts shouldn't unless they are disabled and there is proof. However the mentally ill label is thrown around way too much and I know people receiving it who have anxiety or OCD. I suffer bouts of both and do not feel I am disabled. I also know many bi polar people and depending on the severity many can work but choose to use disease as a reason to not work. I had a friend with schizophrenia and he loved to work at his job and didn't understand people with lesser mental illnesses who chose not to work. I'm not saying there shouldn't be help for the mentally ill but mentally ill can be expanded to illnesses that are minor or under control.

New_Wave_Princess wrote:Social Security does need to change because it will run out of money. That scares me but I doubt it will be around when I retire.

The things I think SS needs to do:

1)Increase SS taxes on those who can afford it. After a certain level they don't take out more Social Security and they should.

2)Only allow those who paid in to collect except for rare instances. I know people collecting social security on what their parents paid in and they aren't working. Also, many people receive social security though they never paid in. I've heard countless stories of drug addicts getting social security and also immigrants who came here after they retired receiving it. These cases have to be looked at individuallly.

3)Also, they need to stop taking money out to pay for other things.

I think changes are evident but they do not need to focus or penalize those on or soon to receive SS or benefits. But anyone 30 or younger should prepare for change! And they should consider their changes well in advance . But job recovery doesn't even lend hope for a retirement future for the young!

I see both sides of the healthcare argument. But I do not know why they can't put a plan together to come up with healthcare solutions! But again, its about taking care of the rich! I saw an article saying repubs. are taking care of the super rich and the dems. are waining for their own constituents. And in the near future it will be the rich middle class and the poverty class with no real middle class. We are in trouble and I also heard from my SS social worker that jobs will never be the same or come back due to global economy!!

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

New_Wave_Princess wrote:Social Security does need to change because it will run out of money. That scares me but I doubt it will be around when I retire.

The things I think SS needs to do:

1)Increase SS taxes on those who can afford it. After a certain level they don't take out more Social Security and they should.

2)Only allow those who paid in to collect except for rare instances. I know people collecting social security on what their parents paid in and they aren't working. Also, many people receive social security though they never paid in. I've heard countless stories of drug addicts getting social security and also immigrants who came here after they retired receiving it. These cases have to be looked at individuallly.

3)Also, they need to stop taking money out to pay for other things.

I think changes are evident but they do not need to focus or penalize those on or soon to receive SS or benefits. But anyone 30 or younger should prepare for change! And they should consider their changes well in advance . But job recovery doesn't even lend hope for a retirement future for the young!

My parents recently retired and I doubt the changes will affect them. However they will me and I doubt it will be around for me.

I'am 64 soon and I would not change my age to be younger if I could!

New_Wave_Princess wrote:I have no problem with immigrants receiving social security if they paid in. However, I've seen many who never paid and received it which is wrong. I have no idea how they received it but they did. My paternal grandmother was British never became a citizen and received ss because she paid in.

Those with development disabilities should receive assistance. Drug addicts shouldn't unless they are disabled and there is proof. However the mentally ill label is thrown around way too much and I know people receiving it who have anxiety or OCD. I suffer bouts of both and do not feel I am disabled. I also know many bi polar people and depending on the severity many can work but choose to use disease as a reason to not work. I had a friend with schizophrenia and he loved to work at his job and didn't understand people with lesser mental illnesses who chose not to work. I'm not saying there shouldn't be help for the mentally ill but mentally ill can be expanded to illnesses that are minor or under control.

Again, there are always those who take advantage and "fake" their disabilities. Mental health issues are as dangerous as health issues and should be treated as such, but unfortunately, in this society they are labeled. When determining eligibility for disability, the same criteria that applies to physical disabilities should apply to those with mental health issues. I also suffer from anxiety (which has only gotten worse since unemployment began) and hypertension, which is no big deal, right now. For some, the conditions I mention are to the point of being incapacitating. There are people with anxiety disorder that will not even leave their house. You can't put everything into a category and judge whether or not a person is able to work. You don't know their full history. I have friends and family members with bi-polar disorder who work, and want to work, and I know others who can't work because of this illness. I also know several that have died from this because, again, it was overlooked and misdiagnosed.

People who suffer from certain mental health conditions often turn to alcohol and drugs. I have seen far too much of it, it is an illness and should be treated that way and eligibility for SS should be determined on the severity.

Having worked with people with disabilities, I can honestly say that the majority of people on SSDI right now need to be and deserve it.

Well, originally I was studying to be a psychologist and saw as part of my classes and internship job people faking it to get disability. There needs to be more reviewing each case to see if someone can't work work versus won't work. Those who truly can't work should get assistance but those who choose not to don't. Pretty simple. I don't feel drug addiction or alcoholism should be labeled as diseases anymore than obesity should be. These are all choices one makes.

That is easy for you to say. Who decides on which individual case if the person "deserves" disability? You? There will be people in any society with a safety net that take advantage of benefits. If unemployment benefits were extended until everyone found a job there would be people that stayed on them forever. That does not make the program bad and there is no way of saying if someone has really looked for work or not.

This is the same as saying whether a person is able to work or not. It might be easy for one person to look at another and deny benefits because they think it is possible for this person to work but that doesn't make it accurate.
You said you did some work as a psychologist. I have also done extensive work in psychology. I don't know how far into it you got but anxiety can be VERY disabling. I know people who can't even leave their houses due to anxiety. My point is that it's really easy to point fingers.
Social security will only go broke because it has been robbed from by the republicans. There doesn't need to be any wholesale changes to it. The tax needs to be increased on people in higher tax brackets and that is the bottom line. I don't want to hear anything from anyone about punishing the rich for their success. It is time they paid their share. Taxes are way too low in the country, for everyone.

No, psychologists and people like that should decide. The amount of people I knew who bilked the system is astounding. Anything can be considered disability but in my mind if it's self caused then a person shouldn't get disability. If it's not self afflicted then it varies. Obviously if it's something they can't help then yes they should get disability. I'm just tired of the people who use excuses as a reason to get disability. One guy was bi polar but spent his social security on drugs, should he get disability? Nope. In fact he spent his time trying to leech off of people to give him money. If someone is well enough to work then they shouldn't be getting disability. If it is such that it prevents them from working then yes they deserve it.

I also feel like we can't judge people by where they spend their benefit checks. In my time out of work I have had people that have, quite literally, told me that I have too many pairs of socks to get anymore of their "tax money". What do they want me to do? Sell my socks?

A lot of people game the system but the vast majority do not. This is just like the "welfare queens" from the 80's. Everyone knows someone that drives a Porsche and gets welfare checks.

When it comes to alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc you better believe I judge on that. Those aren't needs.

New_Wave_Princess wrote:When it comes to alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc you better believe I judge on that. Those aren't needs.

Alcoholism, Drug-addiction and morbid obesity are diseases. I don't know what you learned in your psych classes, but go back and look at your notes!

And I smoke, and do not think I should be judged on that vice. No one is perfect!

But they still shouldn't get disability on those because they caused them in most cases. Besides, if someone gets disability this usually means they are on medication so what are they doing doing drugs or drinking anyway? I have no sympathy for these people because they did it to themselves. I don't drink do drugs and am not morbidly obese because I take care of myself. Anything can be considered a disease but we can't be going around giving everyone disability because they caused something.

Get the facts. Google "Causes of Addiction" and "Dual Diagnoses".

MoInSTL wrote:Get the facts. Google "Causes of Addiction" and "Dual Diagnoses".

Thanks for your support, MO. That is what I was trying to tell her. Obviously she wasn't paying attention in her psych classes.

Desperate thanks for changing the title thread. I was not sure where to post. Interestingly, the senior execs in the office where I'm temping ---most who earn six digit salaries -- could care less about SS since they have fat 401 portfolios. They actually make jokes about social security and position it along the lines of welfare. Another face of corporate elite and greed running this country. I need Obamacare because I've been without health insurance since 2008.

DesperateInRI wrote:

MoInSTL wrote:Get the facts. Google "Causes of Addiction" and "Dual Diagnoses".

Thanks for your support, MO. That is what I was trying to tell her. Obviously she wasn't paying attention in her psych classes.

I got A's and at least I attended college. I wasn't sitting around eating ho hos and drinking and doing drugs. There's no reason that someone should use the excuse that the obesity or drug addiction was caused by other issues. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why should I or someone else have to pay more in taxes, or be denied assistance because someone didn't take care of themselves? If they have a mental problem then they should go get help. However if they are drinking/drugging/eating the problem away I have no sympathy. Obese, or substance addicts should not be getting assistance unless it's proven they are mentally ill. Even then they shouldn't be doing these bad bahavior patterns. This is partly why I think Obamacare is bad, because it will reward people for bad behavior whereas people like me will have to pay more for their choices.

I am fat now because since I have no job all I do is snack on whatever I can afford, worry, and cry. I have never considered collecting social security for it. I have also had OCD so badly that I was taking 20 minutes to leave the house, still will NOT give in to say I am disabled. I want to work. I fight both and keep going, try to not eat so much as I get more and more depressed and would be SOOOO embarassed to apply for disability. As for social secuity, the very wealthy pay in, but it should just be a tax for them, no millionarie needs SS when poor older Americans are going hungry. Yes, New Wave I have been eating that problem away and I am disgusted with myself and am fighting it, but the more rejection I get, the harder it is. If I could get a job, the problem would solve itself. Lord, ya'll pray for me.

I think the part that sucks is nobody really understands what the effects on a person are after being rejected over and over losing everything and being broke, only to try and try again and then find out that nobody wants to hire you if you've been out of the work force for too long. So in order to keep your life line you have to apply for jobs you know you will get rejected at for over and over and then get to come home to the news (that you lost your home or you lost your car through repo at the interview) and then get indoctrinated about how your lazy or on drugs or may never find a job. I would never wish this life on anybody.