How do you get people to vote against their best interest?

You gay bait them.

This is the ad being used by USA Next, a conservative action group employed to help deal with AARP for the Bush Social Security plan. His plan will not pass without some approval by AARP or disapproval of AARP.

This is the same group that ran the Swift Boat campaign so they are very good at what they do.



When you click the link it just takes you to their site. No mention of how or why AARP dislikes a soldier and likes two men kissing. It's just knee-jerk propaganda to get people to vote against their best interests.

Did I mention Bush now thinks he might have to increase taxes to pay for his Social Security plan? hahahah suckers.

They could have done better. A very attractive and stoic soldier, and 2 very unattractive or over-the-top gay men (or very butch gay women) would have better suited their purposes, I would think. 2 nice looking, well dressed men (with lovely bouquets, I might add) isn't as shocking to most people as they might be hoping for.

If you're going to try and use support of a lifestyle as something eeeeevil, you should always try to paint that lifestyle in the worst light possible. It's just good business.

That goes both ways. Or did you see or hear any of the ads played on Black Radio by liberal groups this election year. It seems all politcal groups like to pray on the dumb and ignorant.


Anyone that believes in SS is a sucker. Abolish SS! I want to keep my 7%.

Social Security is about more than your 7%.

Not to mention, it is unrealistic to think that everyone would take their social security and save it.

No, I think it's very clever. People tend to accept OTT gay caricatures (like Will And Grace!) more than images which 'normalise' homosexuality. They've just the right combination to get the defenders of our morals blood pressure up! Also by making the men attractive it also catches the eye of the most virulent anti-gay, the dreaded latent homosexual.

Very good points, Ewan! Agreed.

Make them vote with the Democratic/Liberal agenda.

Well, I'm guessing an actual argument over Social Security reform really isn't the topic of this thread, so I won't go there.

As for the ad, and this coming from someone who REALLY believes in privatizing social security (though requiring folks to fund their accounts, they can't take the annual taxes and buy a boat), this ad is bloody stupid. I have my issues with the AARP, but this ad isn't relevant in the slightest.

I'm curious as to whether this ad is being used and how broadly. I can't imagine it will go to TV (except for maybe the 700 Club), maybe it will be a mailed flyer to church groups, just curious.

Oh, and last I heard Bush was saying no to a payroll tax increase (really 12.4%, excluding Medicare and including the employer-paid portion) but that he was willing to entertain raising the tax cap (currently at $90k I believe). Now, this is a de facto tax increase (and frankly I suspect this alone will NOT be enough), but in the strange political language of taxes the Republicans use, it doesn't count, since the rate remains unchanged. Yeah yeah, semantics I agree, but that's how Bush will try to sell it, trust me. Unless I've missed a new statement about increasing the posted (not just effective) rate.

Basically Bush's plan will bankrupt Social Security very quickly. This is done based on the premise that it will work out better in the long run.

Currently, only the first $90k of your income is taxed for Social Security. Anything above that is not.

Bush is considering a proposal to increase the $90k limit on SS tax to cover some of the costs of his plan. As part of the population that makes over $90k a year, I find it a little odd that Bush said he wasn't going to raise taxes on SS.

So basically I have to pay a lot more so that the already fiscally irresponsible people of the country can invest in private SS accounts and further screw everything up. I already pay more to begin with because of my income. Now I might pay 7% on an even higher figure.

Fiscal conservatism sucks. Big Time!

Yeah, I was just checking on if I missed a press release that he was proposing to raise the rate, quite familiar with the cap.

Well, Bush hasn't been accused of being a fiscal conservative for quite some time, not since 2001 to be sure. A lot of Republicans are rather miffed about it.

Well, you/me/we are going to pay a lot more soon, reform or not. Whether it is through a payroll tax increase (increased cap, rate or both) or through normal tax rates, it's going to happen. Retirement age adjustments isn't going to do it. Reindexing benefits isn't going to do it. Massive benefit cuts could, maybe, perhaps, but there is no way in hell that's going to happen with the AARP's massive and growing political clout. The trust fund is a fiction, I'm not saying it will go bankrupt, it can't (without the whole governemnt going bankrupt anyway), but those surpluses haven't been saved, they have been funding current government outlays. Without reform of some kind (privatization or not), deficits are going to balloon to a scale where something will have to be done. Bush hasn't put us on a great financial footing to start with to be sure, but it was going to be real ugly either way.

Now hopes that privatization is going to save us, well, not going to happen. It might save some money long-term, but it's not a panacea. There are other reasons to do it, but that's a whole 'nother argument. Whether it is better to bring some of these costs forward, well, that's an even longer discussion involving some really nasty economic models.

As for people screwing up their retirement savings, I don't think anyone, except perhaps
some in the utopian wing of the libertarian party is suggesting there won't be limits on what people can do. Diversification will be required. There may even be some regulation on asset classes by age. The market can be a bitch in the short term, mostly in equities, but long term ins rather different.

Who in their right mind would believe that AARP would be promoting a gay agenda? ACLU yes, NAACP I guess it could fly if people don't really know what the NAACP does, but come on, AARP? Perhaps they are morphing from Grey Panthers into the Gay Panthers?

Don't you know that all geezers are conservative (except when it comes to the government mucking about with their social security, meds, Indian gaming or RV's).

That said, tongue in cheek - I can't believe what I'm seeing. I wonder if AARP is aware of the ad? I can't imagine that they would just let it hang out there without some comment. Those grey panthers can bite when ya git em riled up.

The most unrealistic thing is 3 workers supporting on retired worker who is getting more out of a system than they paid in. Yes SS is about more than 7%, its about 14% (employer matching).


I for one don't feel comfortable entrusting my life and wellbeing to a government, I would rather control it myself.

I'm not a socialist and dont believe in socialism, so this is a pointless conversation.

And you think privatization will do that? It won't.

You can invest in your own retirement anytime you want. I do.

Of course privatization will work better they have a proven track record. Just look at how much money Enron made for their employee's retirement benefit. The really great thing about it is all the options that the investors had after Enron failed.

Two men getting married will be the end of our civilization. Anarchy will reign supreme. I'll be able to marry my cat and my pig! Even the Pope says gay marriage is part of an 'ideology of evil'. And Social Security, the Military, the AARP, and gay marriage are all interrelated. Right?

I'd consider marrying my cat if he wasn't so damn fickle and cat'en around all the time.

I have been saving for retirrement since I was 15 (my good friend in HS had a dad that was an investment banker), and working since I was 12. I just don't want to pay for other people. I can use that money to assist my own family instead of giving it to random people so they can get more out the system than they paid in.

How do you manage to keep from choking on your own tongue?

Nice to see you are capable of civilized conversation.

No one has ever accused me of being civilized!

If everyone paid their own way, the red states would be in a heap of trouble right about now. Good thing the blue states are here to pick up the slack for the welfare states.

There are blue counties, there are not blue states. Illinois is not a blue state, cook county is a blue county. If you can believe that, voter fraud is rampant.


Your comments are so ignorant, baised and lacking basic logic to back them you are impossible to even conversate with.


Do you only post so people will agree with you?

County or not, Illinois pays in more in taxes than it gets back. Georgia receives more dollars than it pays in. Illinois pays for Georgia. Illinois is blue. Georgia is red. This is not an overly difficult concept.


Is there another reason?


Impossible? I think we are being just a tad bit of a drama queen aren't we?

People who whine about paying only for themselves always entertain me. I make a lot of money and I pay a lot of taxes. I'm okay with the fact that some of the money I pay in might go to a child who loses her father early in life. That is one of the benefits of social security.

I do well for myself and I am okay balancing that out for the country. I have a good job and am paid extremely well for what I do. However, at the end of the day someone has to take out the trash. Just because that person is not me doesn't mean they should suffer.

Does this also include not wanting to pay Social Security survivor benefits for families of soldiers killed?

Hehehe... hehe...