We’ve all heard about the war on drugs, war on women and war on Christmas, but did you know there’s a war on the AARP as well? A competitive organization with political overtones, AMAC (the Association of Mature American Citizens) is trying to siphon both members and dollars from AARP (formerly the American Association for Retired Persons), longstanding leading voice of senior Americans.
“It seems an individual’s right to practice their religion is attacked, only to be replaced by a strange social order.”
AMAC implies, and sometimes says outright, that AARP is not conservative enough to represent right-wingers. In fact, AMAC is pushed by Townhall.com and other far right media organizations.
Based on AARP’s June “Bulletin,” most of its positions are politically benign, albeit with a focus on issues important to seniors such as Social Security and Medicare. Articles include “How to Avoid Phony Locksmiths” and “Divorce After 50 – It’s Skyrocketing.”
But there are two articles that could easily show AARP’s political hand: “Retooling Medicare” and “Time for a Tune-up” (of Social Security). But as it turns out, both articles take a carefully balanced take on potential changes to both Medicare and Social Security. Even the Paul Ryan approach to Medicare funding gets a fair hearing.
So what’s the problem with AARP? Well, they do support the American Care Act (Obamacare), which is anathema to the right wing. They also tend to support increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and they are not doctrinaire on the abortion issue.
But the real heart of this battle between the two organizations may be about money. Both AARP and AMAC sell various kinds of insurance to their members (health insurance, long-term care, auto and life insurance) so they are competing for a growing market of seniors.
The differences in size and scope of the two organizations are stark. AARP claims around 40 million members, whereas AMOK is thrilled to announce that it has now reached 330,000 members. Townhall refers to AMAK as David to AARP’s Goliath.
AARP has revenues from insurance royalties and advertising in its various publicans of around $800 million. AMAC does not provide revenue figures.
AMAC’s biggest claim to fame is its proposal to fix social security by turning it into individually owned IRAs. The organization claims that its plan would provide increased benefits with no increase in taxes.
No one questions the right of an American company to compete in any marketplace, but AMAC was not created to offer a competitive advantage. It exists primarily to press a right-wing political agenda that counters an organization whose political focus is almost entirely on issues for and about the nation’s senior citizens.
As reported by Fox News Radio:
“(AMAC President) Dan Weber sees AMAC as a way to unite citizens to defend our American way of life.”
With this comment, Weber makes AMAC seem more like a radical militia group then a serious support organization. Rather than providing a useful alternative for information to seniors, AMAC adds to the further splintering of American politics along partisan, ideological lines.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
According to CNN and 60 Minutes reports, AARP was a virtually unknown organization until an insurance company executive came across it and thought it would provide a great avenue to sell insurance.That was the real beginning of AARP and it certainly hasn’t changed.
Nationally, 28% of Medicare recipients choose Medicare Advantage plans.(On a state-by-state basis the number runs as high 49% according to the Kaiser Foundation.)AARP actively lobbies against Medicare Advantage plans.Why?AARP’s profit comes from selling Medigap insurance policies, which are not needed by those who are in Medicare Advantage plans.
The emails between AARP and the Obama administration that were released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee prove conclusively that AARP worked directly with the Obama administration to pass the ACA, while all the time knowing that it would harm seniors and that seniors overwhelmingly opposed to it.Why?AARP stands to make billions in insurance commissions from the ACA.
On AARP branded insurance, for example through United Health Care, AARP receives a 4.95% commission that is charged to seniors in addition to the normal premium.Many people unknowingly trust AARP and don’t shop around so they don’t know they are paying more than they would through other companies.(For anyone who is one of these people, it is illegal for AARP to collect commissions and you would be wise to join the class action suit pending against AARP to recover your money.)
AARP does not benefit the members; the members benefit AARP.AARP’s greatest asset is the membership list, which is used to promote AARP branded insurance.And where does the profits from the insurance go?It goes to AARP senior management and their pet projects.And it’s used to the detriment of the membership, e.g. lobbying against members who chose Medicare Advantage plans and supporting the ACA, which hurt members.
Change.org petition to replace AARP senior management
White House petition to eliminate AARP’s tax exempt status
Just read the most recent AARP magazine that got mailed to me. A big piece is offered on "the benefits of the ACA" in a Q & A format, etc. AARP continues to be THE shill for Obamacare and their own wallets, at the expense of the citizens of the country. So, on top of the corruption we are seeing in the State Department and our White House on Benghazi, the IRS, NSA, as well as several incidents of late where our Fourth Amendment rights have been trampled, well, my view as to where we are headed in the next few years is not too optimistic. Obamacare or the ACA is a full on push to inject the central government into the lives and rights of individual citizens, make no mistake. The next 3-5 years will see how our ship of state is going to go.....It must be redirected or some bad times lay ahead for many.
Please allow me to offer a rebuttal, if I may. Not to defend truthspeaker's incorrect statements regarding AARP and the Christian Coalition, which you correctly point out as being both false and in violation of temporal mechanics, but instead to respond to your own incorrect assumptions, statements, and representations of Conservative people and positions.
First, your statement that health insurance is a "right," as stated in the Declaration of Independence. There are many problems with this, not least of which being that the Declaration is not law. The Preamble is indeed often quoted, but it's not law. It's more of a mission statement and an identification of the beliefs and principles of the new nation. But if we're looking at that mission statement, and talking about what constitutes a "right," then we can use the language there as a guideline, since those same principles were later codified into the US Constitition. So, what is a "right?" The Preamble does indeed famously mention rights, and more importantly it states where the Framers believed that rights come from. Rights, in our system, do not come from the State (and thus cannot be taken away by the State). Rights, instead, come from "their Creator." Or, put another way, we have certain inalienable rights simply by virtue of being human beings. The role of the State is not to provide them, but to protect them. These rights are Natural Rights (Nature's God and Nature's Law, in the words of the Founders). This idea comes, in part, from Cicero.
The point is, any natural rights that any creature has, we also have. To live freely, to defend ourselves, etc. Others are specific to humans, but again they are extensions of these same ideas, and they all come from the idea than Man should be free, and responsible for his actions (because you can't have one without the other. You have Free Speech, free assembly, etc, but you are responsible for what you say, and who you associate with. Those are the rights that the Founders were talking about. But one of the biggest ones, was the Natural Right to own property. That is, in fact, what "pursuit of happiness" means. The right to have ownership of your home, the fruits of your own labor, etc. I encourage you to read their own words, as they talk about this extensively. It does NOT mean that the government should provide everything that you want, and would make you happy. It is YOUR "pursuit," not the government's provision to you. Health insurance (which is just a method to pay for healthcare in a different way, instead of all up front) is not a right. Healthcare itself is a bit different. We already have a system where anyone in dire need of care could walk into any hospital anywhere, and get that emergency care. And if they couldn't pay, they couldn't be refused anyway. Nobody had to die in the streets. Nor do any evil Conservatives *want* anyone to die in the streets. But health insurance, a means to mitigate the immediate monetary cost of healthcare, is not a right.
I've already been too long in replying, so I'll have to leave some of my other comments out. But two things, before I go. First, you will never be shot by a law abiding gun owner. I encourage you to look at the crime, violent crime, and gun crime rates, among CCW holders, and compare those rates to the general population. Depending on the State, the rates for any crime at all - let alone gun crimes, which are almost unheard of with CCW holders - are either absurdly low, or infinitesimal, when compared to any other group, or the general population. Considering all the hoops one must jump through to get a concealed carry permit, and the fact that background checks are required almost everywhere to do so, immediately weeds out those who just want to carry guns to commit crimes. So, almost by definition, "law-abiding gun carriers" are in fact the least likely of anyone to commit gun crimes. And if they intended to do so, why would they jump through all the hoops, put their names in the system, and register their guns? They wouldn't. Criminals don't do any of those things. You are simply biased against guns and gun owners, probably because you likely have never been around any. If you had, you would know better.
Lastly, please do not assume that just because I believe that giant welfare programs are actually harmful to the people dependent on them, and disincentivise them to ever strive to pull themselves out of poverty, that that somehow means that I do not care about starving children. On the contrary, conservatives are consistently much more charitable, in percentage of income given to charity, than liberals and Progressives are. We simply believe that it's up to US, personally, to help those in need around us, rather than leave it up to a giant, faceless, uncaring, wasteful, monolithic State. The idea that conservatives are somehow heartless because of that, is simply incorrect.
I have read AMAC's positions. I think it exists to pander to seniors who are ill informed and selfish. God knows there's lots wrong with the AARP but I think it tries to assume responsible political positions even when many members may object.
A year or so ago the WSJ had an article on how the AARP was emailing the Obama administration to offer support for Obamacare, which included deep cuts to Medicare. In doing so they betrayed the interests of seniors they purported to represent. So it is about time there was an alternative to them.
It's one thing to lack the information necessary to make informed decisions on how we want our country to move forward, and quite another to be simply misinformed altogether.
"truthspeaker": The Christian Coalition was established in 1988, and the AARP was founded in 1958, so you are off in your chronology by 30 years. By the way, the Christian Coalition stayed around just long enough to help put us on the path of having our pensions replaced with IRAs, which are now tied and subject to Wall Street's publicly-funded booms and crashes. The lawsuit against the Cristian Coalition's attempt to mooch off the American taxpayer for its political endeavors had nothing to do with its demise. That began of its own accord in 2000.
But really, truthspeaker, your entire post is an alternative reality version of what actually took place over the last 20-odd years. What bothers me is that nobody else here had any inclination to correct anything in your post.
About AMAC's support of the 2nd Amendment as it is now interpreted:
I think my right to not get shot by some "law-abiding gun owner" who could have been stopped by a simple background check should supersede any warped interpretation of the 2nd Amendment foisted on us by the domestic weapons manufacturers.
About AMAC's anti-abortion stance:
Get your priorities straight. If you don't care about children who are already walking this earth, why should you care about any who haven't even been born yet?
Although I think the AARP is practically useless in its advocacy for retired Americans--they did not support anything having to do with medicare for all, single payer, or even a public option--and they finally reluctantly came out in support of Obamacare, which is basically a Heritage Foundation invention and a national version of Romneycare. It's a profit-based, profit-driven system with just enough regulation to help more people get what they should already have. Healthcare is part of the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence that Dan Weber is so fond of parroting. It's not a commodity; it's not profit motive; it's not a share price. It's a right. Healthcare is part of our right to pursuit of happiness in this country. The AARP is hardly a "liberal" organization if they can't even support THAT.
Typos notwithstanding, nobody else here has even attempted to refute any points about AMAC Mr. Markow has put forth. It is what it is: a right-wing advocacy group for senior citizens, and that's all it is.
I read your article. I'd like to think that you did your research, but your lack of ability to correctly state simple facts causes a serious lack of credibility. You called "Obamacare" the American Care Act. It is NOT. It is called the "Affordable Care Act" and is nicknamed "Obamacare". You spelled AMAC as AMAC, AMOK, and AMAK. You need to be consistent and credible if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Thanks IVN, for reminding me, by way of your lib rhetoric, of the reasons I needed to jump the AARP ship: I did so about a month ago. I had renewed for the maximum term about a year ago. Last month to told them to cancel my membership and refund my unused "dues". They did and I just received my refund check and am now focused on choosing the organization I will get involved with: AMA, Generation America, American Seniors or NAOCS. I'm a very thorough and resourceful researcher and feel confident I will choose the correct, "right wing" choice to counter the weight of the Lib AARP.
If AARP is so "benign" then why did it so strongly support OBAMACARE which robbed half a trillion dollars from Medicare?
In the past 20 years I have thrown away tons of AARP member and insurance solicitations. The AARP has always been liberal. I have refused to ever join it because I rarely agreed with them. They are mainly an insurance company posing as a senior organization. I am glad there is now an alternative.
Not only does this article seem one sided, I noticed they misspelled AMAC twice in one area as AMOK and AMAK, not very good writing. What has happened to reporting the facts and spell check? I am enjoying reading many of the comments here and agree that it is time for a counter to AARP.
Lets be perfectly Clear! AARP got is $Billion payout for endorsing the UN -affordable care act. To be perfectly clear , the vast majority of its membership were not swindled by its faulty crazy double-think socialist agenda. Well they will get not another penny from me not will they get any more kick-backs from from United insurance. I have joined the millions who are levering and joining AMAC. i wont pay a fee to be sold -out and have the social security be robbed to balance the Obama Care PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL IRRESPONSIBLE
AARP was originally founded by the Democrats as an alternative to the Christian Coalition. The Chrisitan Coalition was an organization that printed non-partisan "Scorecards" that printed every senator and representatives vote on sensitive issues such as Abortion rights, 2nd Amendment rights etc They merely disclosed how EVERYONE democrat and republican voted and did not give advice as to who anyone should vote for. It was completely non-partisan. The democrats sued them for disclosing their votes and kept them in court with frivolous lawsuits until they bankrupted them. They also passed a rule that no individual votes could be printed in the Congressional Record, only final tallies of for and against so that their members could plausibly deny voting for or against anything they wished. This benefitted both parties! The only people it didn't benefit was anyone wanting to know who voted for what!! My question is "Why don't the dems want me to know how they vote" Could it be because when the Media tries to blame things on the republicans their votes tell a different story if anyone checks? Why did they sue an organization for just publishing their voting records, the Republicans didn't care who knew how they voted! The democrats are deathly afraid of their actions being brought to the light of day because they and the media can't lie when the truth is out there. Remember in 1993 when the dems raised taxes and not one republican voted for the raise and the media couldn't interview any republicans on camera to make it appear that is was they who did it. The American people saw who did it and the next year voted all the dems out in both the senate and house. THEY remember that I'm sure and they know the truth will always hurt them hence their shutting the Christian Coalition up because they knew those scorecards that were distributed freely for the asking told the truth and they couldn't cover their actions up with a media blitz. You can expect the same to happen to AMAC and any other organization that opposes or exposes their elitist agenda.
Partisanship just for the sake of being obstinate, or just to be on the other side, doesn't make sense. But when one side's (the Liberals) platform persistently advocates high taxes, big government spending, big government regulation of the private sector, and wealth redistribution, partisanship becomes a common sense survival instinct for all those who cherish freedom. In the limit, Liberalism leads to the People working to support an invasive government instead of working to support and raise their families. Since the AARP supports Liberal orthodoxy, I support AMAC. What's wrong with you?
I'm not sure how you get "With this comment, Weber makes AMAC seem more like a radical militia group then a serious support organization" out of “(AMAC President) Dan Weber sees AMAC as a way to unite citizens to defend our American way of life.”...that is, unless you presume that all conservative groups are "radical and militant"...which is obviously the presumption here.
I also find it odd when someone makes a statement like "...AMAC adds to the further splintering of American politics along partisan, ideological lines.". Politics are, by nature, partisan. If they were not, it would be an autocracy rather than a Republic. And upon what, pray tell, should politics be based if not ideology? What we need is MORE ideology, and less power, in politics.
I see this article as quite a declaration of where IVN stands in their political bias. I think AMAC is the way to go. They will be fighting for the America I remember!
biased, uninformed regarding what seniors need, assumes we're unable to wade thru the malarkey for ourselves--bye bye AARP-can you hear the landslide of people leaving?
I dropped AARP and The Hartford when they said they were speaking for me in polotics, especially supporting The Mulatto Lyin King.
17 Trillion Debt? 42% Interest? Open Borders? No ID for Voting?
Government Shutdown? Spying on Private Americans? On and On…!
The Rocks (The Edward Snowdens) will cry out exposing the biggest fraud in history – Barack/Barry Hussein Soetoro-Sutoro-Suttoro-Soebarkah-Dunham-Obama a.k.a. Harrison J. Bounel SS# 042-68-4425 (Snopes.com), etc.
Even the Obama Infidels (America's 51.06%) will know they have been hoodwinked. They will finally learn that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". Free food stamps. Free housing. Free utilities. Free Medicaid. Free college. Free ADC. Free WIC. Free SSI $ for Cubans and mental/behavior problem children. Free cell phones. Free "cash for clunkers'. Free support for solor power. Free aid to other countries (especially countries who want to kill non-Muslims (Americans) etc. It doesn't take a Socrates to know a fraud when you see one. Oh yes! OvomitCare? Kudos for Sen. Cruz, a real American!
Even though this was a pretty pro-AARP article, it seems fairly significant to me that every one of the other 7 comments on this article are from seniors who are displeased with AARP's liberal agenda. I read this article to find out more about AMAC, and I did! I'm going to join, and not for the discounts, but to help them in their fight to represent MY views! Thanks for all your comments!
AARP sent me a membership card before I turned 50. They obviously wanted my money. I soon quit them and did not belong to any senior organization until AMAC came along. AARP is an extreme far left political organization, all in with the Democrat Party. They do not represent my views and I am sure do not represent the views of the majority of American seniors. They have built their huge money machine over time. AMAC can do the same. Any senior who studies the positions of both organizations will likely choose AMAC. The products sold by either organization do not interest me but I very much appreciate the conservative positions of AMAC.
What a Liberal biased comparison this is. I've been unhappy with AARP ever since my mom joined it 20 years ago. Now that I am eligible I refuse to join. AARP is all about profits and making big money for their executives. An organization for seniors should be beneficial to seniors. Any organization can get kickbacks for selling insurance and other products so seniors don't need AARP, there are many alternatives for those products, especially if they support opposing political views. Amac supports my views and I am not a right-wing extremist as the author assumes. I will join what suits me and others can do the same. Its still a free market system, although the AARP may wish the US was a command economy so that the government can mandate all citizens must join and pay up.
At least AARP membership is voluntary. The Delaware teacher's union I was once in had forced membership/Dues even though I disagreed with many of their political actions and would have quit except the state/teacher contract mandated membership or I would lose my job. That was definitely not a free market system. At least I can choose Amac over AARP without fear of reprisal.
I was fortunate that my parents scraped together money which allowed me to go to College. I studied hard for a degree and was able to pay most of my own costs thru scholarships earned at school plus working at the college nearly the entire time. I then was fortunate enough to have a successful career and am now retired comfortably. Washington and AARP seem to be in lock-step wanting to create a social system where the past success's are used to fund a lazy new electorate with give away programs which only create new lazy voters. If I were in charge I would demand workfare programs for all healthy persons who receive assistance. We could start with industries which we sent overseas (like clothing) and fill all the empty factories with new equipment and the cheapest labor force in the world:( those we are already paying to not work). If they don't want to do the work then lets stop paying them better then the young people who do work in our current employment environment. I can handle helping them but we do need something in return besides "give us more".
I have been involved in politics for over 50 years and when I joined AARP at age 50 thought I was getting into a good spokesman for seniors - it has certainly changed from my initiation into AAPR - and unfortunately not for the better. Obamacare is certainly a death sentence to seniors (others with challenges) who may have a serious illness or condition - or will have - Doctors will be told (by non- health care people) NOT TO do what is best to improve them, but to give them medication to "make them comfortable". Not exactly what I am looking for.. I am 75 - have pretty good health - but I do have more challenges than when I was 25. So, if I get hurt or seriously ill - they figure I am not productive enough to improve and will just "make me comfortable" until I die. That is only part of the ObamaCare program. Also since AARP sees fit to support that and a number of non American/Consitutional items - I will see fit to drop them and will be joining AMAC. Talk to some doctors, real estate people, etc. (yes real estate) - what does that have to do with the Health Insurance ObamaCare - nothing with health care, but everything with a new tax on homes - included in the ObamaCare health package. Lots more hidden agendas in that piece of junk. If we don't do something to protect our freedoms in this country from socialism - we won't have a country (as we once knew it) to live in with freedom.
Once again, I came to an article looking for an unbiased comparison between these two groups. This one is definitely pro AARP and attacks AMAC on several points, even trying to be cute by calling it AMOK in one statement. I haven't been happy with AARP's positions on several items over the last 15 years or so. I'm 71, but I joined AARP when I was 46 (yes, they accepted my money and sent me a card), so I've been reading AARP's stuff for the last 25 years, and I've seen a big shift to the left. I'm conservative, and I don't want the government stealing money set aside in SS that was suppose to only be for SS, but the politicians have been siphoning off SS funds for at least 15 years and then wanting to cut our benefits to cover the lost revenue, because the government has never paid that money back.
AARP is definately left of center and on Team Obama. I am proud to have just joined AMAC with its patriotic and traditional values. I am sure as they grow (and at last count I was told it was over 700,000) and that was awhile back, more companies will start becoming discount partners. I only see this thing putting a bigger and bigger dent in old AARP. I am glad to see the word getting out as the majority of seniors are conservative and traditional values oriented. Kind of like liberal radio( or lack there of) When liberal ideology is laid bare it doesnt do well in the market place. AARP is backing the healthcare bill that is widely disliked in poll after poll so I would say AMAC is more in line with the American People.
AARP will reap about 1 Billion ( with a B here folks ) over 10 years because of Obamacare. Medicare Advantage fades away, and AARP replaces it with its supplemental insurance. Nice collusion if you ask me. And, how you equate AMAC with a so called radical right wing militia is what I expect as do so many millions of conservatives from Liberal folks. Emotional labels, versus simple facts. Weber does have an agenda. And, that agenda does have sound moral and ethical reasoning behind it. So again, when someone stands up for the simple principles of our Nation's founding, and takes a stand on the horrific over spending in Obamacare and other Leftist agendas, you label him and his organization as " a radical right wing like militia group.......Cheesy and low rent discourse on your part, period.
I just went onto Medicare and purchased a supplement via United Healthcare. It was close with a plan from Mutual of Omaha. But to get the plan from United, it was mandated to join AARP for one year. In my first year, my premium on the United plan has gone up 10%. AARP has become the 800 lb gorilla and a bully in their activities. Now, these are facts supported by real life review.
This essay is so predisposed against AMAC and anything else ideologically right of center that it is reduced to childish propaganda, just silly. It should be ignored.
AARP has become a wolf in sheep's clothing. Lots of "neutral" articles you can find elsewhere, disguising a far-left political agenda on both fiscal and social issues. Abortion. Gay rights that attack religious liberty. Socialist economic policies that will hurt seniors big time.
Alan Markow sounds like he's on Obama's payroll. Same old tactics - attack! attack! attack! - Ridicule those who don't agree with Obama's schemes! Weber (Amac) talks about defending the American way of life, and Markow translates it to "splintering of American politics along partisan and ideological lines"! I totally agree with Amac's philosophy, have long been against AARP's politics! I have joined Amac and allowed my AARP membership to lapse. Certainly nothing to lose!
I heard of you for a couple of years but Bill Bennet this morning put me over the top and I thought I would subscribe
Have the government replace the money they 'stole' from social security and stop paying benefits it was not designed for.
Docial Security is solvent. If the government hadn't borrowed money from SS to fund the Iraq war, there would be almost 4 TRILLION dollars in the fund. As it is, there is almost 2 trillion still in the fund.
A few years ago, Nancy LeaMond, an AARP Executive Vice
President, gave a presentation about AARP’s strategic vision. In the
presentation, she said that one of the big changes to AARP was that the
organization had committed to social change and had “set a 10 year social
What she didn’t say was that social change had become more important to AARP than benefiting the AARP membership. If what AARP sees as a beneficial social change happens to benefit the membership it’s an added talking point.But it’s certainly not a requirement. The only requirement is to effect social change as defined by AARP senior management, even if it is to the detriment of the members.
Nowhere is that more obvious than AARP’s support of the ACA. In the emails that were exchanged between AARP and the White House (made public by the House Energy and Commerce Committee) AARP stated that the 89% of its members opposed the ACA and 0.8% supported it. (The remainder said they needed more information.) AARP then went on to discuss how the ACA would hurt seniors and to conspired with the White House on how to spin the facts to make it appear that the ACA would be beneficial to seniors.
A number of years ago, AARP shortened its name to just the initials because they were no longer interested in representing just retired people. They needed a bigger membership to give them more income to help them effect social change. Not that the members’ dues amount to much. But the number of members does. The vast majority of AARP’s income is from kickbacks for AARP branded insurance. (AARP calls them “royalties” to get around the law, but the current class action suit against AARP by AARP members who over paid because they trusted AARP will, hopefully, resolve that.) More members mean more people to market over priced insurance to and greater
revenue from advertisers in the AARP magazine. And that revenue is poured into social change programs, even if they hurt the members.
Personally, I believe the current AARP management should give us retired people our name back and go form their own organization. They can call it AASC, American Association for Social Change. (Of course, depending upon your perspective on what they’ve done to AARP, the S could also stand for scum.)
AARP was founded as an organization to benefit seniors; not as an organization to bilk senior out of billions of dollars that can be used to support the social change AARP management desires.And it is especially heinous when the change is actually detrimental to AARP members.Regardless of whether or not you’re an AARP member, regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of the benefit of social change, tell AARP senior management what you think of them and their deceitful methods.
[email protected] For reporting ethics violations committed by AARP employees (but does it apply to AARP senior management?)
[email protected] Barry Rand, CEO (Actually goes to their PR people)
[email protected] Barry Rand, CEO
[email protected] John Wider, President and CEO AARP Services
[email protected] Hop Backus, EVP State Operations
[email protected] Lisa Ryerson, President, AARP Foundation
[email protected] Jo Ann Jenkins, COO AARP Foundation
[email protected] Kevin Donnellan, Chief Communications Officer
[email protected] Jane Alexander, EVP AARP Services
[email protected] Kristin Dillon, VP Social Impact
[email protected] Emilio Pardo, Chief Brand Officer
[email protected] Nancy LeaMond, EVP State and National
@jpagesq In all due respect, the reason AARP still has many members is because of people like you. You really need to do your reading and get informed on this organization. I used to be a member until I started looking into this group and I cancelled it and would NEVER join again. Their CEO gave money to Obama's campaign and I wrote to him expressing my disgust that he should have had members vote on that before he did it. The organization is so tied to liberals and their agenda. They will get kickbacks from Obamacare. Please get informed and spread the word that AARP is definitely NOT for the betterment of seniors - just look at what Obamacare is doing to Medicare - taking literally billions out of it. Next thing coming down the road is that seniors will not be able to get certain treatment (expensive) and after that comes the death panels. AARP is just another big business making as much money as they can - it has nothing to do with caring about seniors and the sooner people realize that, the better.
@jpagesq Well, I don't know about that. As a former member of AARP and changed to AMAC, virtually 90@ of their political opinions lean to the "left"; and, a good many lean far to the "left", which made me wonder about that. The straw that broke the Camel's back (sorry PETA), was when it was announced that Obama Care had made a deal with the White House to push for the act; and, for their help, they would be paid $1.00 BILLION. And, if you want facts, try listening and reading both sides of the news and the AARP's printed word, along with the AMAC's printed word. A fiscally responsible person would have to say that the current administration is driving us to the brink of financial chaos.
"Responsible political positions" include deceitfully supporting Obamacare which cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions?
@ retired teacher "AARP is all about profits"...um, it's a non-profit organization. What are you talking about?
Ummm, no, Toe the line... please refer to>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
My thoughts precisely. I Guess Presidential "Support for Muslim Brotherhood" = a Closet Al Qaida sympathizing Jihadist too then....
What a slanted piece of garbage article.
@Michael C. Gomiller, Sr. Sir there is not one thin dime in Social Security because there is no Social Security Trust fund. There is a repository for the IOU's, ie; government bonds, that our government replaces our Social Security funds with before placing them in the general fund along with all the other taxes it collects. This is akin to trying to save money by placing money in a shoebox on payday and then through the week replacing the money with IOU's. Years later when it's time to enjoy those savings and take them from the shoebox all you have is iou's and no money. The bonds they are placing in Social Security are like iou's and as everyone knows our bonds are almost completely worthless right now that's why our government is printing 85 Billion a month to buy them themselves at present. There were trillions in the Social Security Trust fund when the politicians voted to take and spend that money and replace it with IOU's. WAKE UP all you people that have no idea how our government is operating. Now the elitists would rather just use obamacare to kill off seniors rather than give them what they have worked for all their lives. That is their answer to Medicare, Social Security and all the other programs that are broke because of their stealing taxpayers money to buy votes with free housing, food stamps, telephones, rent assistance, agricultural subsidies, and money given to communist fronts such as Acorn and hundreds of others.
Wow, what revisionist garbage. The government (Congress) has been spending the Social Security Surplus as "Income" for over 40 years. The Iraq Wars? what nonsense. There is no "Trust Fund" Just a bunch of long term obligations that the current population of workers has to pay to support. Given that our President has been a failure...I repeat, a failure at freeing up Capital to enable economic Growth, the percent of American's working is at a historic low, and non-discretionary spending is headed for all time highs and will continue to increase until 2030 where it will all go to hades unless the economy starts growing tremendously.
So, stand by amigo, living standard are headed down for most seniors unless the President becomes one hell of a good capitalist....
@TeamAmerica1So YOU say, but where's the facts.
@retiredteacheroftruth @ retired teacher Being a non-profit, in this country, does not mean anything. Many of the NP's have substantial "reserves" at the end of the year; and, the % of salaries they pay, out of their gross, sometimes resembles the majority of our nations School Districts(which many average between 70-80%, a % that makes it impossible for a public company to pay--and still stay in business. Now, it is true I do not know AARP's percentage's; but, just because it is an NP does not amount to a hill of beans.
@akcita That's why he wears a ring (has worn it since he was 17 yrs old) that has engraved on it "Allah is the one true god". He even wore it as his wedding ring so he wouldn't have to remove it because he is "Married" to Allah! That's why he is sending arms to Syria even though our intelligence agencies have assured him they are being given to Al Qaida and even being used in Yemen to fight the government there! He has never known a bad muslim even if they are in the business of killing women and children! Please don't read this as an attack on Obama, merely an expression of facts as reported in various news organizations such as the Washington Times.
@jpagesq @TeamAmerica1 the facts can be found from the CBO's own releases and a simple google search. Obamacare and Obama have officially admitted the reduction in Medicare beefits and justify it by saying they are necessary for the greater good. Well I haven't drank Obama's coolaide and know he is lying for his own agenda. Good luck to you sir.