Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 900 billion dollar surplus - social security

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 14, 2012, 7:25 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Fun Facts

Since it's inception, Social Security's surplus is 900 billion plus interest - 2.7 trillion!!!

It has never added a dime to the national debt.

55 million seniors, disabled workers, widows and children are on this program guaranteeing them economic security.

shared from Dennis Kucinich's facebook page.

This is a great page to follow - http://www.facebook.com/CongressmanDennisKucinich

as is his .gov page - http://kucinich.house.gov/

24 Comments

24 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The fact that the right is settling for Romney, and the left for Obama, when plenty of viable options like this man are around, shows how far we are from being able to pull ourselves out of this mess.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I tell democrats all the time that Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY democrat in the 2008 primaries that not only voted NO on Bush policies like the Patriot Act but he was also the ONLY candidate that tried to impeach Bush.

Same reason why Repubs have Romney instead of a real repub like Gary Johnson.

I say it all the time... MONEY IN POLITICS HAS CREATED A DANGEROUS GAME. Money in politics is the only reason we have people like Obama and Romney. Anyone who doesn't want to believe that should rethink the fact that combined they have over 1 BILLION dollars in campaign contributions.

[-] 3 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

Kucinich did this country a great disservice by not running against Barack Obama this year for the democrat nomination, a huge disservice.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I would have loved to see him run again. I think it has a lot to do with his previous campaign sadly going nowhere. A majority of this country has no clue who he is....

He couldn't even win his re-election campaign for congress after being redistricted.

Money in politics has created a dangerous game.

I'm hoping he'll run in 2016 where he won't be facing an incumbent.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

He was needed this time to stir things up. Obama was only getting 60% of the vote against unknown competitors in many states.

Kucinich actually could have made a name for himself and maybe gotten Obama to realize what a banker he has become. Obama's committee actually parted way with the glass steagall reform bill, are you kidding me?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27701) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

He would never have gotten the nomination going against the incumbent president. He could however have accepted endorsement by a third party like the independents.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 2 years ago

Kucinich had a chance to make an impact, to make a difference. Obama was below 70% in many states votes. Why not try the Green Party, they are going to be on the ballot in many states anyways.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The fact that we just hand over the nomination to the incumbet is a tragedy to democtracy

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It does because the people allow it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MadInMedfordOre (1) 2 years ago

If this is in fact the Occupy Wall Street Forum then it is NOT a Pro- or Anti- corporate-controlled Democratic or Republican Party forum. So if this is in fact the Occupy Wall Street Forum, take your obnoxious trailer park "Repelican" rhetoric the hell out of here. Same goes to all of you Obama, Paul, Romney and Stein partisan plants. AWAY WITH YOU!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

That process failed a long time ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27701) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes it is a tragedy. Especially when you see what some have done while in office.

This one would be a very hard call because of the open rebellion against the people by some very noticeable politicians in office.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20442) 2 years ago

And, the Post Office doesn't cost us a dime either. And, Medicare has had smaller increases in cost than private insurance plans.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You and your facts!!!! lol

I can't stand the attack on these awesome and beneficial programs.

People need to push the facts! Our taxes should only be going to programs that benefit society.

TO ALL WHO READ:

Anytime someone tries to say "social security is the problem" don't just say you disagree... throw out some facts and mention the 900 billion dollar surplus and the fact it has never added a single dollar to the debt.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I hear this a lot. What we need is to find out how much is being collected for entitlements through wage deductions and compare that to entitlement output for the same period. I never see anyone present these numbers when making the surplus argument. If input > output, we should be asking why congress is misappropriating funds.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

A law needs to be passed saying the money can only be used for social security. I can agree with that.

Social Security isn't the problem... congress is.

The sad thing is... with such a low approval rating... a majority of incumbents in congress will be elected based on money in politics spreading propaganda and lies.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 2 years ago

the problem has never been the state of social security now, it is what will happen when the baby boomers retirer with a life span that is decades longer than when the social security act was passed, dunce!!

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 2 years ago

In about 27 years when the surplus is gone, they can give out food stamps to a natinalized food coop, give energy credit vouchers and gas vouchers to nationalized gas company.

And using food stamps won't be a bad thing.

Also, we'll need to import some temporary workers so they can pay some taxes.

And health care will be nationalized too.

We're going to need some hybridization, or else the 1 percent can pay up.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

-eh wrong!

Typing something in a forum doesn't make it true.

Care to share facts instead of an untested theory?

Here's some facts for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx_oMTskEY4

[-] -1 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 2 years ago

The Summary of the 2012 Annual Reports by the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees pretty much spells out my argument

www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

(i am a technological caveman :> )

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

AGAIN watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx_oMTskEY4

Dennis Kucinich lays out how to solve any potential problems in this video...

An ignorant congress is the problem... not social security. Read your own link.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 2 years ago

OK, take those cuts or whatever and put them back into the Social Security Trust Fund. That money should stay there and not go to funding any tax cuts or debt reduction. The most we should expect is for no additional taxpayer dollars to go into Social Security above and beyond what is brought into the trust fund through payroll withdrawals. This is an internal matter within the Fund and the solution should be within it. And yes that will mean increasing the retirement age, more thoughtful investment, increasing payroll withdrawals, or streamlining health care services for the elderly.