Republicans going after AARP

They should be investigated.

Agenda?
I dunno, I always thought it was a sorta hobby, like burning the homeless.

It's a good thing for you your parents let you live at home. You don't have to worry about Republicans and their hobby.

They didn't have to....we called and notified them he died when we were dealing with his Estate. They said "thank you" and then continued to send the scads of junk mail they send all their members as well as beggers letters, bills and magazines.

Three different calls. Three times they thanked us and said it was taken care of and three incidents of complete falsehoods.

Do you have any idea how terrible most old people are with technology? My grandmother thinks twitter is something that a bird does, and that a mouse is something you kill with poison.

And I still don't see your point. Who cares if they cry poor?

I just find it interesting that you all take the House Ways and Means committee so seriously when the title of the report is "Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn't Know." The report title alone is so slanted. As I'm reading through it, the jist of it is, "AARP should lose tax-exempt status because it makes money from licensing the AARP name to insurance companies." As well as, "The previous CEO made $1.5 million a year." I'm not saying that what AARP is doing might force it into non-profit status, but I seriously question the motives of those who wrote the report, as it reeks of butthurt.

Does anyone actually know the ages of AARP staff, or is everyone just making an assumption here?

Yes. I do.

For fifteen years, my mother ran a senior citizen advocate office in my home town, and they interacted constantly with AARP and other aging-related organizations and social services.

You don't walk in to one of their offices to be greeted by the overwhelming smell of Ben-Gay. They're staffed with people of all ages, not only senior citizens.

I would say, after reading the report, that I agree, but I doubt you actually read it.

But you surely should have agreed that the Candie Foundation should be investigated for private inurement as well, since most of the expenditures for teen pregnancy advocacy at the Candie Foundation went to Bristol Palin, and the Directors of the Foundation made $12 million dollars between the Candie Foundation and its related clothing line.

Except you didn't.

That's what I assumed. And yet you made that crack about technology.

Your point?

The "crack" about technology stands. Regardless of who they've got staffing their offices, young or old, competent or lazy and apathetic, the technology should, with the bare minimum of attention, see to the task of eliminating unnecessary mailings, just for starters.

Apparently, this doesn't happen, which makes an accounting of what's actually happening there a good idea

He was talking about how AARP staff could use technology to keep track of members who don't respond to mailings and such.

No mention of the age of the AARP staff in that post. At all.

While I doubt that I'll ever see you actually support people when you can so easily dismiss people and show undying love and adoration for the government and big organizations.

Mention? No. Implication, possibly. Q.v. The Defender's follow up post.

As for the technology, it's only as savvy as the people working it. Apparently AARP has a website and email and other cool 21st century stuff, so maybe they're just short staffed.

Anyway, come tomorrow morning, a lot of Congresscritters are going to find their phone lines jammed and a gauntlet of angry lobbyists lying in wait in the corridors. As I say, this should be fun.

Whatever you say.

Not that this'll do any good, but did you ever stop to think that a "Oops, misread what you wrote" might go a little ways toward taking some of the wind out of your detractors' sails? With this kind of stuff you come across just as unbending as your "enemies".

And, yes, I do that, when I have in fact misread something. In this instance, what I read wasn't clear. But then Jamey clarified, then you horned in and, yanno what, I went off and did something else for a while. So now I'm back.

This is the second instance today in which I've been accused of not being nice to someone who is habitually anything *but* nice to me.

"Hi, yeah, I know I've said nasty things to you and about you for years, but I'm being nice to you RIGHT NOW, so you'd better be nice to me."

I don't know anywhere outside of this very special place that that sort of behavior is acceptable.

Nevertheless, in the interests of the kinder, gentler WF, I hope Jamey will forgive me for not understanding his post. Do I dare hope for reciprocity going forward?

Also, I'm about to log off for the night, so I hope no one's offended by that, either.

I don't actually like big organizations, but you wouldn't know that, because you form generalizations about me based on what fits your preconceived ideas about me.

Actually it is based on your statements here.