Town Square

Post a New Topic

Swalwell protests against Stark for Social Security benefits being paid to his children

Original post made on Sep 3, 2012

Congressional candidate Eric Swalwell said that if elected he will support closing a provision in the Social Security law that grants benefits to children of a parent eligible for Social Security, but still working and collecting a salary in excess of the earning cap.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 24, 2012, 12:00 AM

Comments (8)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greedy & irresponsible
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2012 at 11:26 pm

I am appalled at children of employeed parents receiving ?1,500/ mo. It's crap like that causing social security, and in fact, our government to go broke.
Many single parents raise children. Why would having one parent mean you get government money. Insane ! And just because somebody has a later in life baby, shouldn't mean it suddenly becomes a taxpayer problem !! That must be stopped now. IF somebody is truly a poverty case, maybe...but being selfish, irresponsible older parents, shouldn't mean it's MY problem, when I need to be providing my own retirement. It's those leeches on our government that are cousing us problems. Cut it now !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by What's New...
a resident of Downtown
on Sep 4, 2012 at 9:07 am

Stark has been stealing you blind for years ... keep electing him ...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Are Voters Nuts?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 9:09 am

Fortney Stark is a senile old crook with a net worth of around $25 million. Since he was a basically a bankrupt banker before he became a Congressman, it is important to ponder on how he became rich as a Congressman. Now the scumbag is drawing Social Security for his kids??? Just how stupid are voters in his district, to keep sending the joker back to Congress, often with over 80% of the vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greedy & irresponsible
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 10:02 am

These SocSec abuses must be explored and discussed. So what if there's one parent left after death of the other...maight there be a million dollar, no public record, life insur policy ?? Is the remaining parent a Congressperson or CEO ?
Social Security was created for RETIREMENT, Then electeds started buying votes by adding on 'goodies' thru the years...to OTHER people. Soc Sec has now, in addition, become a welfare program too !
On Suzie Orman last week, I saw a newlywed couple in their 40s receiving OUR Soc Sec for HIS child, because his first wife had DIED ! SO?! These are 2 able bodied 40 yr olds, collecting for his first wife. IF he hadn't remarried, SO??? HE's employed. If he needs help, get welfare, DO NOT SUCK off SENIORS retirement $$.
THE PROGRAM IS BEING USED FOR MANY THINGS TODAY, OTHER THAN RETIREMENT. PROGRAM NEEDS REVIEWED, PUBLICIZED, and RETURNED to it's intended purpose. WHICH at the time it started the AVE age of death was 65...SO they set the age to start receiving at...65..!! Today death is more like 80. With every COL in US, they upped SS. BUT with every life insurance table upping age, cowardly congresspeople did NOT APPROPRIATELY UP age to real time. So Soc Sec today barely covers just seniors who are living longer than the short work history required.
Regardless, there is ZERO reason to give Soc Sec to Stark who MARRIED a student young enough to be his grandchild...Even without Stark, Mom's healthy so, get a job, go on welfare, but NOT suck Soc Sec..NOW. Return Soc Sec program to seniors only....not child care for healthy parents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greedy & irresponsible
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2012 at 11:59 am

So is Swalwell going to campaign that he will work to keep SS for retirees only ? and reclassify& redirect all the other parasites that have been sucking Soc Sec contributions in other directions ??


 +   Like this comment
Posted by starkzacrook
a resident of Downtown
on Sep 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but as a member of Congress, Fortney doesn't pay into SS because he has his own elitist pension plan and lifetime health coverage. He apparently worked in the private sector sometime before his 40 year stint in Congress, but now his kids are collecting SS on his behalf? How much did he pay into the system versus how much he's sucking out of it at our expense?

Does anyone defend this sort of abuse? Plenty of people keep voting for this multi-millionaire crooks that are supposed to be our representatives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 4, 2012 at 7:15 pm

The sad fact is that few people are looking at the dismal record of Pete Stark. He has demonstrated numerous times that he is a dishonest belligerent bully that has scammed the system and his constituents for years. People need to look at his record and throw the bum out of office. No papers will touch him regarding an endorsement, and there is a reason.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greedy & irresponsible
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm

Is Social Security for seniors, or not ??
Has it drifted off course? Are abusers are bleeding the program away fron it's intended purpose?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,042 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 688 views