USANext Stages Swiftboat-Style Attack Ad Against AARP

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why the hell not? You pay money, and you get a benefit after retirement. It's an investment.

This is the point - you pay money, but you may (but likely may not) get a benefit.

Same is true for any investment

BS! Name one private corporation which has the power, as Congress has, to legally deny you your own money paid into a private investment account.

The Supreme Court has ruled that money paid into SS is a TAX, not an INVESTMENT, and you're not entitled to getting anything back.

[/quote]Link to case, please

In Helvering v. Davis, Justice Cardozo, writing for the majority, wrote the following regarding the Social Security Act:

Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. ' 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. ' 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. ' 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. '' 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. ' 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." ' 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. ' 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. ' 807(c).

There's two important points to note here - first, both the employer's and employee's contribution are characterized by the Court as a TAX, and second, none of it is 'earmarked in any way'. Like I said before, you pay and you pay, and you may still get nothing. SS is the govt's version of a slot machine. You may also want to check out Flemming v. Nestor, a 1960 case in which the Court held taxpayers have no legal property interest in any funds paid into SS. Robert Samuelson, in a piece critizing the Bush Administration's proposal for having the same flaw, writes about it Here. This is why I also don't like the Bush plan.

Future benefits can and will be cut. If you're a younger worker today, you lose. But thanks for playing!

Markets can and do crash. Younger workers can easily lose on the market. Thanks for playing.
Keep in mind that SS came to life after the Gread Depression, when many cocky "investors" like somce on this board lost their shirts and became destitute. If Stock market was such a great engine for retirement security, we wouldn't have SS now.[/quote]

Who said everyone has to go into stocks, anyway? It's about choice; people should have the option to put their own money into whatever accounts they choose. If you're not comfortable with stocks, and I have no problem with that, put your money into something else. But you should have no say over mine.

 

[SuperTool]

Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
SS has worked, and will continue to work.

Because you say so? Whatever.

This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work.

My private account is doing quite nicely, thank you. And I have a heck of a lot more faith it'll be there when I need it than I do in SS. No politician gets to say how much I'll get back from my private account.

If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

SS would've existed as long as there was a Democrat around to insist there's still such a thing as a free lunch.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

In some cases. But it failed Americans before SS was enacted.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

In some cases. But it failed Americans before SS was enacted.

There are currently more than 5 million that have been able to opt out of Social security. I have yet to find anything about any of them performing worse than SS.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

In some cases. But it failed Americans before SS was enacted.

There are currently more than 5 million that have been able to opt out of Social security. I have yet to find anything about any of them performing worse than SS.

How do I do this?!

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
[q[]Tell you what, take all your neoconservative buddies, find an island (a nice one even) and move there. Take all your money, belongings, whatever and rot there. No one will EVVVER take your money again. Sound like a plan? Good. Buh-bye.

It would be funny to see all the wealthy repbulicans leave. Where you make up the 70% of the taxes they pay?

I thought that our blue/red charts showed us that it was the other way around.

Thats ironic, then why is it most Democrats support social programs that redistribute wealth fro the haves to the have nots?
Because the Demcorats are broke ass gimme-my-handout deadbeats. (A large portion anyways)

And Republicans are war-mongering murderers hellbent on the destruction of the Constitution. Well, I'll say that as long as we're throwing around stupid generalizations like that.

Ok, then you tell me why the Democratic voters are by and large the pooror segment of America? You tell me why Democrats by and large support social programs?
You can SAY its a generalized statement, but its not, thats what is so sad. Democrats as a group ARE the poorer of our society, why do you think Democrats always try to portray themselves as "For the "working" man", and for the "have nots" in this country?
Gee, you do the math, but its pretty obvious.......[/quote]

I think stunt pointed this out in another topic:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
many red states get more in federal spending than they contribute, while many blue states get less than they contribute.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: DZip
The AARP is misleading the uninformed about individual investment accounts. I wish I could have invested some of my social security taxes in a private account 30 years ago. In the past 30 years my private investments (IRA's and 401k) have averaged 8.7% growth per year. The same amount in a secure savings account would be considerably less. Another misleading point the AARP makes is private investment accounts are mandatory, they would be voluntary and you can make a choice. The AARP is using scare tactics on its gullible members.

Another misleading point that you make is comparing social security to a IRA. Social security includes a disability benefit, which makes it much more comperable to an insurance product than an IRA.

The disability benefit is taxed seperatly from the retirement portion.

What do you mean by this?

charrison,
I think you are confusing social security with SSI. Here is a link describing how SS is more than a retirement account: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html
it also describes the difference between SS and SSI.

The portion of SS for retirement is funded by 6.5% contribution by employee and employer(total 13%). SS disability is funded with 1.8% contribution. These two things are taxed and funded seperatly.

Well then, either the federal government document is wrong, or you didn't read it.

Social Security And SSI Are Different Programs

When people talk about disability benefits, there is often confusion about Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This is understandable because the Social Security Administration administers both programs. But the programs are different.

Social Security disability insur- ance is a program that workers, employers and the self-employed pay for with their Social Security taxes. You qualify for these benefits based on your work history, and the amount of your benefit is based on your earnings.

SSI is a program paid for through general tax revenues-- not through Social Security trust funds. SSI disability benefits are paid to people who have a disability and who don't own much or have a lot of income.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

In some cases. But it failed Americans before SS was enacted.

There are currently more than 5 million that have been able to opt out of Social security. I have yet to find anything about any of them performing worse than SS.

Another "Texas Miracle?" No thanks, I'll pass. Just because a relatively small group of people has done relatively well over a relatively small timespan, is not a reason to switch the whole country from a program that has worked for 75 years, an will keep working long into the future. Like I said, private accounts have failed to provide for secure retirements prior to enactment of SS. If they didn't we wouldn't have a need for SS. Just because a few people have done well over the last 20 years in private accounts, doesn't mean that if the whole country is invested in them, they'll do well over the next 75 years.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Ok, now how is SS a ponzi scheme?

Pon·zi scheme Audio pronunciation of "ponzi scheme" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.

An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

This exactly describes the current pay as you go SS method. IT would be illegal if the goverment was not runnding.

1)SS doesn't promise high profits.
2)Insurance companies run in this manner. Would you call insurance a ponzi scheme?
(also did you see my earlier post showing how SS does, in fact, have a disability insurance component?)

1. It promises a life time retirement.
2 Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke.

1. And it delivers
2. Insurance companies invest premiums. Some amount of premiums are applied to claims, anything above that is invested. The invested capital is held against future claim liabilities. Excess SS "premiums" have been invested in government bonds (though opponents of SS say that this means that they have been given away). Not sure how this is terribly different.

 

[CaptnKirk]

lL=The Future of Retirement]http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4108&n=3[/l]

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: DZip
The AARP is misleading the uninformed about individual investment accounts. I wish I could have invested some of my social security taxes in a private account 30 years ago. In the past 30 years my private investments (IRA's and 401k) have averaged 8.7% growth per year. The same amount in a secure savings account would be considerably less. Another misleading point the AARP makes is private investment accounts are mandatory, they would be voluntary and you can make a choice. The AARP is using scare tactics on its gullible members.

Another misleading point that you make is comparing social security to a IRA. Social security includes a disability benefit, which makes it much more comperable to an insurance product than an IRA.

The disability benefit is taxed seperatly from the retirement portion.

What do you mean by this?

charrison,
I think you are confusing social security with SSI. Here is a link describing how SS is more than a retirement account: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html
it also describes the difference between SS and SSI.

The portion of SS for retirement is funded by 6.5% contribution by employee and employer(total 13%). SS disability is funded with 1.8% contribution. These two things are taxed and funded seperatly.

Well then, either the federal government document is wrong, or you didn't read it.

Social Security And SSI Are Different Programs

When people talk about disability benefits, there is often confusion about Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This is understandable because the Social Security Administration administers both programs. But the programs are different.

Social Security disability insur- ance is a program that workers, employers and the self-employed pay for with their Social Security taxes. You qualify for these benefits based on your work history, and the amount of your benefit is based on your earnings.

SSI is a program paid for through general tax revenues-- not through Social Security trust funds. SSI disability benefits are paid to people who have a disability and who don't own much or have a lot of income.

I maybe wrong about the how they are funded, but they are funded seperatly and are different programs(much like your link says). The two are basically easy to seperate and we are basically in agreement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we have taxes in America. What else is now. SS has worked, and will continue to work. This private account nonsense hasn't worked and won't work. If private markets could ensure secure retirements, SS would never have existed. SS exists because private markets are not secure enough to be relied for retirement.

but it does work

In some cases. But it failed Americans before SS was enacted.

There are currently more than 5 million that have been able to opt out of Social security. I have yet to find anything about any of them performing worse than SS.

Another "Texas Miracle?" No thanks, I'll pass. Just because a relatively small group of people has done relatively well over a relatively small timespan, is not a reason to switch the whole country from a program that has worked for 75 years, an will keep working long into the future. Like I said, private accounts have failed to provide for secure retirements prior to enactment of SS. If they didn't we wouldn't have a need for SS. Just because a few people have done well over the last 20 years in private accounts, doesn't mean that if the whole country is invested in them, they'll do well over the next 75 years.

It is not just a "Texas Miracle", many state and local goverments took this option when it was given.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Ok, now how is SS a ponzi scheme?

Pon·zi scheme Audio pronunciation of "ponzi scheme" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.

An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

This exactly describes the current pay as you go SS method. IT would be illegal if the goverment was not runnding.

1)SS doesn't promise high profits.
2)Insurance companies run in this manner. Would you call insurance a ponzi scheme?
(also did you see my earlier post showing how SS does, in fact, have a disability insurance component?)

1. It promises a life time retirement.
2 Insurance companies have rates based on life expectancy and they invest premiums to keeps rates for the eventual payout. IF insurance companties were ran like SS, they would be broke.

1. And it delivers
2. Insurance companies invest premiums. Some amount of premiums are applied to claims, anything above that is invested. The invested capital is held against future claim liabilities. Excess SS "premiums" have been invested in government bonds (though opponents of SS say that this means that they have been given away). Not sure how this is terribly different.

1. It delivers but it has taken 20+ tax hike since it was started to keep it delivering
2. If the insurance took excess premiums and purchased a corperate jet and replaced those funds with an IOU, would you call that an investment?

 

[Jhhnn]

What a distorted representation you're making, charrison. US govt securities are the backbone of virtually all truly large investment portfolios, and still the choice of International bankers and Saudi and Kuwaiti royalty, not to mention wealthy American citizens. That's even with the fiscal tomfoolery coming out of the repub admin and congress.

If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the average guy's investment in SS?

What is it that prompts Repub pundits to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, preaching doom and gloom over SS on the one hand, and pushing US Treasury bonds on worldwide investors like they're the best thing ever?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What a distorted representation you're making, charrison. US govt securities are the backbone of virtually all truly large investment portfolios, and still the choice of International bankers and Saudi and Kuwaiti royalty, not to mention wealthy American citizens. That's even with the fiscal tomfoolery coming out of the repub admin and congress.

If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the average guy's investment in SS?

What is it that prompts Repub pundits to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, preaching doom and gloom over SS on the one hand, and pushing US Treasury bonds on worldwide investors like they're the best thing ever?

I never said treasuries were a bad investment, I only question if the current setup is the best way to go.

 

[Jhhnn]

From charrison-

"I never said treasuries were a bad investment, I only question if the current setup is the best way to go."

Sure you did, you just didn't realize it at the time, and probably won't understand it even as I point it out- By comparing SS to an Insurance Ponzi, you basically condemned govt treasuries, as that's how the current leadership is financing 1/3 of all non-SS expenditures, by accumulating non-repayable debt...

Which is precisely the problem with SS for the Scam artists- it's debt that must be repaid, rather than merely rolled over into new instruments of debt. Kinda like taking a cash advance on the Visa card to pay off American Express... except that Visa won't loan you that much money over the required timeframe...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"I never said treasuries were a bad investment, I only question if the current setup is the best way to go."

Sure you did, you just didn't realize it at the time, and probably won't understand it even as I point it out- By comparing SS to an Insurance Ponzi, you basically condemned govt treasuries, as that's how the current leadership is financing 1/3 of all non-SS expenditures, by accumulating non-repayable debt...

Which is precisely the problem with SS for the Scam artists- it's debt that must be repaid, rather than merely rolled over into new instruments of debt. Kinda like taking a cash advance on the Visa card to pay off American Express... except that Visa won't loan you that much money over the required timeframe...

SS Is still a ponzi scheme.

ANd still have not offered a plan to remove SS surpluses from the hands of congress.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now you've apparently entered a state of Denial, charrison- the way that he repubs are running things, the general fund is a ponzi scheme, and SS contributors will merely be the first to take the hit...

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison
1. It delivers but it has taken 20+ tax hike since it was started to keep it delivering
2. If the insurance took excess premiums and purchased a corperate jet and replaced those funds with an IOU, would you call that an investment?

1. As far as I can tell, any ability to deliver is mostly a modeling and greed issue. SS should keep people out of abject poverty when they are no longer able to work (I know that some people disagree, but I believe that this is a good thing). If we live longer, the age at which it is recieved should change correspondingly. If the poverty level changes (not neccesarily the same thing as inflation), benefits should change accordingly.
2. Bonds are a legitimate investment. If a company borrowed money to buy a jet, and I had reason to believe that they would pay the money back with interest as promised (since that is what a bond essentially is), I would call that an investment. You can call any borrowing an IOU, but it only emphasises your bias in relation to the subject.
The borrowing is not a problem of SS (unless the bonds are not honored). The borrowing is a problem with the federal government spending in general and accountability for that spending specifically.

-edited to reduce quoted material (I hate mile long quotes)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison
1. It delivers but it has taken 20+ tax hike since it was started to keep it delivering
2. If the insurance took excess premiums and purchased a corperate jet and replaced those funds with an IOU, would you call that an investment?

1. As far as I can tell, any ability to deliver is mostly a modeling and greed issue. SS should keep people out of abject poverty when they are no longer able to work (I know that some people disagree, but I believe that this is a good thing). If we live longer, the age at which it is recieved should change correspondingly. If the poverty level changes (not neccesarily the same thing as inflation), benefits should change accordingly.
I dont disagree however the current system needs to be changed to avoid the current treadmill of tax hikes that have been occuring to support SS.


2. Bonds are a legitimate investment.

yes they are


If a company borrowed money to buy a jet, and I had reason to believe that they would pay the money back with interest as promised (since that is what a bond essentially is), I would call that an investment.

But if an insurance spent all of its premiums on purchases that would not make a healthy insurance company. This in effect is what the goverment is currently doing with SS. SS surpluses must be taken out of the general fund if SS is to work.






You can call any borrowing an IOU, but it only emphasises your bias in relation to the subject.


It is not exactly a loan, when you borrow money from yourself.


The borrowing is not a problem of SS (unless the bonds are not honored). The borrowing is a problem with the federal government spending in general and accountability for that spending specifically.

complete agreement.

 

[conjur]

'USA Next' Misappropriated Couples' Image for Anti-Gay Ad Campaign; Couple: Image Stolen for Campaign Against AARP
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit...view&newsId=20050228005768&newsLang=en

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 28, 2005--Conservative front organization USA Next was accused today of illegally using a gay couple's wedding photo in an anti-gay ad campaign supporting President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.


The couple in the photo, Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen of Portland, Oregon, have come forward through an attorney to demand that USA Next stop using their image, and that the organization publicly apologize for using their image in a homophobic and libelous way. The demand, contained in a letter sent today to USA Next Chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis, references the couples' right to seek damages for the misappropriation of their image.

In one version of the USA Next advertisement disseminated widely on the Internet last week, and aired repeatedly by television news programs nationwide, the couple's image, superimposed with a green checkmark, is side-by-side a picture of a US soldier with a red "X" across it. Below the photos is the phrase "The REAL AARP Agenda."

[...]

"In 2004, our clients allowed their picture to be taken at their public celebration, as couples getting married do every day," Christopher Wolf, a partner in the Washington, DC office of the New York-based law firm Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Raymen and Hansen. "They did not volunteer to be models for a 2005 right-wing hate campaign, and never would have consented to having their images plastered in an ad of any kind, much less the one USA Next chose to run. USA Next has violated the law and must take responsibility for the consequences. Tort law is quite clear that USA Next acted illegally."

 

[JimKiler]

Originally posted by: conjur
'USA Next' Misappropriated Couples' Image for Anti-Gay Ad Campaign; Couple: Image Stolen for Campaign Against AARP
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit...view&newsId=20050228005768&newsLang=en

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 28, 2005--Conservative front organization USA Next was accused today of illegally using a gay couple's wedding photo in an anti-gay ad campaign supporting President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.


The couple in the photo, Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen of Portland, Oregon, have come forward through an attorney to demand that USA Next stop using their image, and that the organization publicly apologize for using their image in a homophobic and libelous way. The demand, contained in a letter sent today to USA Next Chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis, references the couples' right to seek damages for the misappropriation of their image.

In one version of the USA Next advertisement disseminated widely on the Internet last week, and aired repeatedly by television news programs nationwide, the couple's image, superimposed with a green checkmark, is side-by-side a picture of a US soldier with a red "X" across it. Below the photos is the phrase "The REAL AARP Agenda."

[...]

"In 2004, our clients allowed their picture to be taken at their public celebration, as couples getting married do every day," Christopher Wolf, a partner in the Washington, DC office of the New York-based law firm Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Raymen and Hansen. "They did not volunteer to be models for a 2005 right-wing hate campaign, and never would have consented to having their images plastered in an ad of any kind, much less the one USA Next chose to run. USA Next has violated the law and must take responsibility for the consequences. Tort law is quite clear that USA Next acted illegally."

They should sue USANext. I wonder though if they will win since it sounds like anyone was able to take this couple's picture.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur
'USA Next' Misappropriated Couples' Image for Anti-Gay Ad Campaign; Couple: Image Stolen for Campaign Against AARP

You know I saw that this morning, and my first reaction was, "What makes USA Next believe that the AARP is for gay marriages?" Am I missing something here?!?