# Damn AARP fruitcakes! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 21, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247 "2005-02-21T22:29:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/81 "2005-02-24T13:54:06Z")
**Jonathan Chance:** _I gotta admit, taking on AARP as opposing a republican issue is pretty fucking bold. If AARP’s membership isn’t a significant contributor to the republican party I’ll eat my cat._ **dropzone:** _That’s what’s been bothering me about this, too. Make whatever noises you want but you DON’T piss off your own power base._ Don’t think the AARP hasn’t noticed, either. A good part of their [Social Security blog](http://aarp.typepad.com/socialsecurity/) is currently devoted to coverage of the USANext ads, about which they have this to say: > [@](#): > > In a previous post on this blog, AARP presented information about the neoconservative lobbying group named USA Next. There is a new development in the attempt by some to discredit AARP because of our stance on Social Security. > > From the people who brought you the Swift Boat veterans campaign against John Kerry in 2004 comes “consultants to orchestrate attacks on AARP” as reported in the New York Times and reprinted online elsewhere. > > These anti-AARP efforts are rooted in neoconservative ideology. Charles Jarvis is president USA Next and was deputy secretary for the interior in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. The true motives of these anti-AARP efforts are clear in this quote from him: > > “They [AARP] are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts. We will be the dynamite that removes them.” > > AARP calls your attention to these efforts because media coverage is clear about the aggressive tone of the language. We question why neoconservatives would choose these tactics. Ironically, this conservative backstabbing of the AARP follows at least a decade of laborious and largely successful efforts on the part of Republicans to woo the AARP toward more conservative policy stances. As pointed out during the Medicare debates last year by the [American Prospect](http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7702), > [@](#): > > The story of the Republicans’ seduction of AARP unfolded over nearly a decade, as GOP leaders cajoled, seduced, and occasionally threatened the group’s leaders into changing their ways and accepting the reality of Republican congressional control. […] > > Aided by a coterie of Republican representatives and lobbyists, as well as a headhunter firm whose Washington office is run by a Republican operative, [Newt] Gingrich helped maneuver AARP from the Democratic to the Republican column. The crucial moment arrived in June 2001, with the ascent to the executive director post of Novelli, who centralized policy making by limiting input from local AARP leaders and who brought with him a team of corporate executives to run the group’s federal and state policy – people much more comfortable with Republicans, open to private plans and market-oriented policies, and more willing to make deals than many of the veteran staff. > > Gingrich waxes eloquent about Novelli, who, he told me in a recent interview, “has a long history of supporting individual responsibility in health care and doesn’t want seniors dependent on government handouts.” Novelli, in turn, felt so comfortable with Gingrich that he invited him to join an advisory panel Novelli had crafted from associates he has met over the years. The panel meetings, which have since concluded, discussed AARP’s future strategies, as well as insurance and other products that AARP might offer. […] > > By 1997, AARP was working closely with Republican House leaders to craft the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which again made significant, although less severe, cuts in the program and took a major leap in opening Medicare to private insurers. […] > > AARP made a crucial decision. Rather than maintain an aura as a Democratic-leaning organization, it decided to promote itself as nonpartisan and to work closely with Speaker Gingrich on the details of a budget bill. […] > > When Novelli took the helm at AARP, he began to exert greater control over the organization’s national network and to centralize its message. […] > > Meanwhile, while exerting more control over the organization nationally, Novelli sought Washington staff who could reach out to Republicans. All that effort in order to secure AARP as a Republican ally, and now USANext thinks it’s a good move to accuse AARP of being anti-soldier and pro-gay-marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/82 "2005-02-24T14:46:54Z")
And that’s the real issue to me. Now what’s going on backstage? 1. The administration is exerting some control and responsibility for this punch. or 1. The USANext guys are off-message and the administration is yelling at them to shut the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/83 "2005-02-24T15:46:52Z")
If I had to guess, I’d probably guess 1.5. The administration is not officially linked to this and will repudiate it if pressed, but will not be inclined to quarrel with any advantage it happens to wind up giving them. IIRC that was more or less how it went with the Swift Boat thing too. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/84 "2005-02-24T16:03:31Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > And that’s the real issue to me. Now what’s going on backstage? > > 1. The administration is exerting some control and responsibility for this punch. > > or > > 1. The USANext guys are off-message and the administration is yelling at them to shut the fuck up. I’m gonna go with #1, **JC**. This Administration doesn’t cut you a lot of slack for having been its ally in the past, if you’re not on its side where it counts _right now_. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/85 "2005-02-24T16:12:39Z")
Yes, damn their fruitcakes, but their waffles are excellent! 😛 On a more serious note, I can’t see what the hell **WeirdDave** is getting at; I suppose that someone who thinks there are circumstances under which private SS accounts might be a good idea might want to see a specific bill before offering criticism, and that’s fine, for such a person. But folderol like this: > [@](#): > > G.W. Bush has only proposed a discussion about ways to improve SS for those under age 55. Nothing has been decided, hell, nothing has even been seriously proposed, and anything discussed will not effect anyone under 55, the threshold age for AARP membership is far from the truth. Bush DOES have a proposal – maybe not quite detailed enough to vote on, but well-enough outlined for criticism by those who find the entire premise absolutely unacceptable, as well as those who find the president’s assumptions too optimistic. It’s interesting, **WeirdDave** , that you bring up Clinton’s health plan, yet draw the wrong conclusions from it. The plan’s opponents attacked it from the beginning, and its defenders didn’t complain that it wasn’t ready yet – they defended the broad outline; both used details as they became available. If there hadn’t been that initial attack, if opponents had waited for a bill to appear in Congress, we probably WOULD have Universal Health Care – at least, it would have had a better chance. Similarly, if SS privatization opponents don’t attack NOW, the proposal may achieve too much momentum to be defeated in Congress. I suspect that wouldn’t bother you a bit. I suspect, in fact, that you already like the idea, and as long as some unspecified odious terms or components are not added, you’re going to support it when it comes to a vote (not that you’ll get to vote on it, but here, if nowhere else, you’ll be arguing in favor). I further suspect that you’re going to relish the time SSP opponents will waste arguing with your partisan twittering instead of preaching to the unconverted. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/86 "2005-02-24T16:24:25Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > It’s a tired old GD trick to avoid debate over the issues. If that’s the game you want to play, go ahead. I laid out the semantic differences last post, you now have a choice: You can address the issue, or make snide comments. So far you’ve chosen the later. I await substance. What **Hentor** said. I’ve pointed out that the clear outlines of Bush’s proposal are on the table. I’ve asked you what’s lacking as a basis for serious discussion. You haven’t answered. If you want a substantive discussion, that would be a good place to start, rather than avoiding one based on your moronic insistence that there isn’t anything out there worth discussing yet. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/87 "2005-02-24T16:43:06Z")
And if you’ve got anything to say about my lengthier-than-intended remarks about 2018 v. 2029, that would be welcomed too. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/88 "2005-02-24T16:45:22Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > I suspect that wouldn’t bother you a bit. I suspect, in fact, that you already like the idea, and as long as some unspecified odious terms or components are not added, you’re going to support it when it comes to a vote (not that you’ll get to vote on it, but here, if nowhere else, you’ll be arguing in favor). I further suspect that you’re going to relish the time SSP opponents will waste arguing with your partisan twittering instead of preaching to the unconverted. Damn skippy I’m in favor of the idea of privatization in general, however I realize there is a large chance of making things worse if it’s not done properly, which is why I refuse to commit one way or another until I see the details. Considering that a worker making 20K/yr, if he was able to invest his SS payroll taxes in an account with an average real return of 6%, would generate an account worth almost 400K after 40 years, and that such an account would support an annuity that paid him about $1,500/month verses the $800/month that SS promises and the idea begins to make sense. Add to that the fact that the money would be put back to work in the economy and not pissed away by the government and it looks damned attractive. Figure out how to do it without screwing current retirees or adding huge costs to the system (which I have NOT seen yet) and you’d have to be a blithering idiot NOT to support privatization. Then again, I’m already crazy, not only do I believe that my money is mine and not the governments, but I’ve been a huge proponent of means testing for SS benefits for years (that’s right, I have no problems with…wait for it…CUTTING BENEFITS. Heh. that probably made more than a few democrats flinch), in spite of the fact that (assuming everything continues to go as it currently is and as I have planned ) doing so will take me right out of the SS program. I say that even considering that I am self employed and FICA gets me for twice as much as the average Joe, so I stand to be doubly screwed. Finally Since I am a registered democrat who is an ideological moderate and voted for Kerry, I have to wonder exactly what partisan axe I am supposed to be grinding. Care to enlighten me? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/89 "2005-02-24T16:59:33Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > And how much universal health care do we have? Did it ever get before Congress? That’s when something becomes a posibility, that’s when it’s “serious” in my book. So let’s ammend the language so we can agree here, OK? You state that SS reform is a serious proposal. I will agree with you. However, as much as I would like some sensible SS reform, it’s nowhere close to being a serious possibility right now, I hope you will agree with that. Isn’t this proposal by the same people that are screaming bloody murder that 10 judges didn’t get approved? Bush has put over 200 people on the federal bench and the fact that 10 of his nominations were stopped by the Dems has them crying that the Dems cheated and that we have to change the rules so that ANY judge that he nominates gets appointed. This administration does not comprimise. They go after what they want and anybody who disagrees with them is an enemy and must be destroyed. But George just stays above the fray and acts all nice while his goon squad does the dirty work. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/90 "2005-02-24T17:01:48Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > It’s interesting, **WeirdDave** , that you bring up Clinton’s health plan, yet draw the wrong conclusions from it. The plan’s opponents attacked it from the beginning, and its defenders didn’t complain that it wasn’t ready yet – they defended the broad outline; both used details as they became available. If there hadn’t been that initial attack, if opponents had waited for a bill to appear in Congress, we probably WOULD have Universal Health Care – at least, it would have had a better chance. Similarly, if SS privatization opponents don’t attack NOW, the proposal may achieve too much momentum to be defeated in Congress. Just to lend some support **Nametag** ’s claims about the history of the debate over Clinton’s health care plan, I highly recommend [this PBS timeline](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html). Click through all three pages to get the whole thing. And thanks to [2004 Koufax Award](http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001748.html) winner [Digby](http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_12_12_digbysblog_archive.html#110295975447565668), for posting this timeline in his blog a few months back. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/91 "2005-02-24T17:22:36Z")
**Weirddave:** _Considering that a worker making 20K/yr, if he was able to invest his SS payroll taxes in an account with an average real return of 6%, would generate an account worth almost 400K after 40 years, and that such an account would support an annuity that paid him about $1,500/month verses the $800/month that SS promises and the idea begins to make sense. Add to that the fact that the money would be put back to work in the economy and not pissed away by the government and it looks damned attractive._ Where do you get the idea that SS contributions paid as benefits to retirees aren’t “put back to work in the economy”? Most SS benefit recipients spend their benefits, putting them back into the economy very effectively. (And the SS bureaucratic overhead is quite low, much lower than the typical overhead for individually managed investments or insurance plans.) Your hypothetical worker’s investment performance doesn’t take into account the survivor and disability benefits that SS also provides. Under the current system, if a worker is disabled before retirement, they can get lifetime disability benefits even if they are never able to contribute to SS again. Surviving spouses and minor children of workers who die before retirement are also eligible for benefits. Under your proposed “private account” alternative, workers who are disabled or die before accumulating large amounts of savings are pretty much screwed (or their survivors are). ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/92 "2005-02-24T17:27:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Your hypothetical worker’s investment performance doesn’t take into account the survivor and disability benefits that SS also provides. Under the current system, if a worker is disabled before retirement, they can get lifetime disability benefits even if they are never able to contribute to SS again. Surviving spouses and minor children of workers who die before retirement are also eligible for benefits. Under your proposed “private account” alternative, workers who are disabled or die before accumulating large amounts of savings are pretty much screwed (or their survivors are). Not really. As part of any reform, provisions would have to be made to spin off the D part of OASDI. No big deal, but it’s things like this that must be addressed before I would get behind a plan. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/93 "2005-02-24T17:46:57Z")
**Weirddave:** _As part of any reform, provisions would have to be made to spin off the D part of OASDI._ Don’t forget the S (survivors) part too, then. However, if the disability and survivor support functions of SS are “spun off” into some other kind of program, the money will have to come from somewhere. If it’s all supposed to come out of the current SS payroll taxes, as all the present functions of OASDI currently do, then your hypothetical worker is not going to have as much money to invest in his own retirement account. No fair just hand-waving away that part of the problem without accounting for the expense. Oh, and I would like to get the details on the annuity your hypothetical worker buys with his retirement savings. Is this a lifetime guaranteed-income-stream annuity? How were the figures you quote arrived at? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/94 "2005-02-24T17:52:34Z")
**Weirddave:** \*Figure out how to do it without screwing current retirees or adding huge costs to the system \* The latter, I’m afraid, is impossible. No matter how you slice it, no matter what you do, switching over from the current “pay-for-your-parents” system to a “pay-for-yourself” or private accounts system is going to generate massive transition costs. During the transition, at least two generations will have to be paid for simultaneously: benefits for the current retirees on the one hand, and the contributions to the private accounts of future retirees on the other. There is no way to make the transition without huge transition costs. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/95 "2005-02-24T18:16:52Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Considering that a worker making 20K/yr, if he was able to invest his SS payroll taxes in an account with an average real return of 6% Which would imply what assumptions about the economy? In the long run, the growth in a country’s stock values, and its economic growth, are pretty much the same thing. This is a question that’s been kicking around the discussion for months: how do you get those sorts of returns out of stocks, if the economy’s only growing at a [1.6% rate](http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_assump.html#wp94905) over that time. This is one of the Trustees’ assumptions on which their ‘intermediate’ projections, the ones that everyone quotes, are based. In their ‘low-cost’ projection, which assumes 1.9% growth, the Trust Fund is never exhausted. So the question is, how do you get an economy that’s growing fast enough to provide such great returns on stock investments, yet poorly enough so that the Trust Fund runs out of money sometime around mid-century? > [@](#): > > would generate an account worth almost 400K after 40 years, and that such an account would support an annuity that paid him about $1,500/month verses the $800/month that SS promises and the idea begins to make sense. Where do you get the $800? I just went to SocSec calculators from two very different sources - [The Cato Institute’s](http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/sscalc/sscalc.php.old) and [Sen. Schumer’s](http://schumer.senate.gov/calc/index.html#); since retirement age for people in their 20s now is 67, I assumed a 27 year old man making $20K annually. Cato says SocSec will pay $13,685 annually; Schumer’s said $14,282. You say $9,600. > [@](#): > > I’ve been a huge proponent of means testing for SS benefits for years (that’s right, I have no problems with…wait for it…CUTTING BENEFITS. Heh. that probably made more than a few democrats flinch) Got a cite that the Dems are opposed to that? Most Dems I know think the system’s progressivity (lower-income people do better in the benefits-to-payments ratio than higher-income people) is a GOOD thing. And IIRC, taxing Social Security benefits of upper-income retirees (a modest form of means-testing) was a Clinton-era innovation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/96 "2005-02-24T18:30:26Z")
Good catch, **RTF**. **Weirddave** , those numerical discrepancies do suggest that you’ve been hearing some pro-privatization propaganda that’s pretty heavy on the bullshit. I’d still like to get the details about the hypothetical annuity paying $1500 a month, though. Can you really buy an annuity paying as much as $18,000 annually with all the advantages SS provides—lifetime guaranteed benefits and survivor benefits, as well as built-in cost of living adjustments—for the sum you mention? (And again, that’s not even taking into account the fact that all disability and survivor benefits for **pre-retirement** workers **also** come out of SS funds.) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/97 "2005-02-24T18:33:41Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > And how much universal health care do we have? Did it ever get before Congress? That’s when something becomes a posibility, that’s when it’s “serious” in my book. So let’s ammend the language so we can agree here, OK? You state that SS reform is a serious proposal. I will agree with you. However, as much as I would like some sensible SS reform, it’s nowhere close to being a serious possibility right now, I hope you will agree with that. I’m sure a lot of people said the same thing about war with Iraq … at one time. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/98 "2005-02-24T18:54:32Z")
Well of course he’s gonna catch any math mistakes, that’s what he does. 😃 [Chevy Chase as President Ford] I was told that there would be no math. [/CCAPF] Seriously though, it’s funny that you bring up the Cato institute, because that figure ($800) came from one of their papers, IIRC, however, it’s the other end of things. (What a worker who retires now would get, not what a worker retiring in 40 years would get) Sorry for the confusion. Since we’re on the subject, the Cato Institute’s [6.2 percent solution](http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp32.pdf) is exactly the kind of plan that I would support. From the [summary](http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html): > [@](#): > > Under this proposal: > > ``` > * Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system. > * The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits. > * Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets. > * Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue. > > ``` > > We expect this plan to restore Social Security to long-term and sustainable solvency and to do so at a cost that is less than the cost of simply propping up the existing program. And it would do far more than that. > > Younger workers who chose the individual account option would receive benefits substantially higher than those that could be paid under traditional Social Security. At the same time, the plan would treat women and minorities more fairly and allow low-income workers to accumulate real wealth. > > Most important, this proposal would reduce Americans’ reliance on government and give individuals greater ownership of wealth, as well as responsibility for and control over their own lives. It would be a profound and significant increase in individual liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/99 "2005-02-24T18:57:10Z")
Ooops. Though I chopped out that last little bit, it’s part of selling the plan, not the plan itself. Still, I strongly agree with the last paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247/100 "2005-02-24T18:57:39Z")
What happens if your 6.2% was invested in Enron, WorldCom and Tyco? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-aarp-fruitcakes/291247.md?page=6)