Reply #4: I nearly ran him down on the street a few months ago, trying to get to him to

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

tell him how much of a hero I think he is for the American people.

But here's my question with regard to social security. Bernie writes:

SOCIAL SECURITY: Under the guise of fighting for deficit reduction, the Republicans will unleash an unprecedented attack against Social Security. They will attempt to slash benefits, raise the retirement age and move toward the eventual privatization of a program which has, for 75 years, successfully lifted many tens of millions of elderly Americans, people with disabilities and widows and orphans out of poverty. Make no mistake about it: the attempt to destroy Social Security has nothing to do with deficit reduction. Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus, can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years and has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. This is an ideological struggle on the part of Republicans in Congress and their billionaire backers to undo the most significant government social program in the history of the United States. They want Wall Street to provide retirement benefits, not Social Security – not because this is a better plan for seniors, but because it ensures massive profits for Wall Street.

My question is: Is social security really running a surplus in 2009 and 2010? The reason I ask is precisely due to the fact that many Americans have been laid off or can't work. With fewer people paying into the system, is there really a surplus?

Another aspect to this question: I thought that Bush/the Repukes squandered the SS surplus on wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Those policies remained in tact throughout the decade. However, we managed to experience surpluses up until 2009. I'm well aware that there's nothing wrong with social security. The program is fully solvent for many, many decades. However, I question this issue of a surplus.

Can someone explain this?