After fighting so hard against the plan to allow people to invest their social security in the stock market, AARP now announces that they are going to open up a mutual fund for their members.

It strikes me as being somewhat insane.  For the last 6 years, they have faught any attempt to reform Social Security by allowing people to decide how their money was invested.  They themselves stated many times that putting it into stocks and bonds was "to risky".

Now they themselves are trying to get their members to invest it in their mutual funds.  Of course, they will make more money from this, unlike if it was done to SOcial Security, where the organization would make no money.

Or in other words, "Do as I say, not as I do."

After fighting so hard against the plan to allow people to invest their social security in the stock market, AARP now announces that they are going to open up a mutual fund for their members.

It strikes me as being somewhat insane.  For the last 6 years, they have faught any attempt to reform Social Security by allowing people to decide how their money was invested.  They themselves stated many times that putting it into stocks and bonds was "to risky".

Now they themselves are trying to get their members to invest it in their mutual funds.  Of course, they will make more money from this, unlike if it was done to SOcial Security, where the organization would make no money.

Or in other words, "Do as I say, not as I do."


Oh please, give me a break.  As a retiree I want to be able to count on the promise the  SS system makes me every year, ie the monthly stipend my income contributiojs have earned.  I also have a pension fund from my employers, some of which I CHOSE to invest in mutual funds.  Its one thing for us older folk to make investments and another to gut the SS system.  I see no contradiction in AARP offering its members a mutual fund investment opportunity while opposing the privatization of the SS system. 

It's not socialism when the Republicans want a federal plan. 

It's socialism if it's health care and Hillary Clinton wants it. 

It's prudent investment if it gives a select few investment brokers billions of money to "invest". Let's ask Neil Bush how that would work out.

The money for the Social Security investment scheme isn't readily available, it would have required a huge tax increase to fund it.  Where's the money?  The politicans (both parties) have spent that money.  It basically is already invested in the country in US gov't bonds issued.  So I'm sorry, but the money is already invested.

Nothing forces me to participate in the AARP plan, no mandatory withdrawals, etc.  Not sure how it's even the same.  I guess it is if you read the National Review though.

They champion leaving Social Security alone, they also advise that you should not entirely depend on Social Security, that savings and investments be part of the total retirement picture.    That is how it should be, how I and most of my friends do their retirement planning.  Really Mushroom, your post is almost kneejerk.