Elon Musk Cuts Off Social Security Benefits For Thousands Of Revolutionary War Veterans

The Department of Government Efficiency faced renewed calls for independent oversight after news broke that DOGE boss Elon Musk had callously cut off Social Security benefits for thousands of Revolutionary War veterans.

The move took place as part of DOGE's overarching crusade to identify and eliminate wasteful government spending but promised to bring the Musk-led team a new wave of negative publicity due to brave veterans of the American War of Independence now being deprived of their hard-fought benefits.

"How dare he take away the benefits we earned with our blood," said 270-year-old Arthur Breckenridge, who fought in the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. "It's only because of men like me that this South African fellow had a chance to come to this country and enjoy the fruits of our labor. Now we find out he's cutting off our Social Security? How are we supposed to live?"

Though Musk and the team at DOGE cited Social Security payments to individuals seemingly far too old to still be living as evidence of widespread fraud, Breckenridge and his fellow Revolutionary War veterans were not going to accept this indignity. "This billionaire miscreant leaves us no choice," said Thomas Halderman, a 278-year-old veteran of the Battle of Saratoga. "We shall grab our muskets and march to Tesla headquarters. Have at thee, you thieving scoundrel!"

At publishing time, DOGE was reportedly seeking a way to verify the ages and identities of the Revolutionary War veterans by asking Senator Mitch McConnell if he knew any of them from back then.

bookerdana · M

Actually the IRS code was cobalt ,they were well aware of it and long ago capped the Social Security age at 110..don't spend yer DOGE tax refund too fast,it might cover 1 month of whaat the tariffs will cost you

ElwoodBlues · M

@sunsporter1649 Names could be associated with ongoing trusts or lawsuits. Some of it is missing data represented by a zero, e.g. for an adoptee who doesn't know their exact birthday.

Under an international standard called ISO 8601, a missing value for a date is coded as May 20, 1875, because that was the date of an international standards-setting conference held in Paris, known as the "Convention du Mètre."

In any case, the Social Security Administration (SSA) halts payments past a certain age (110 or 114); you have to provide proof of life to keep getting checks.

In fact, the SSA publishes tables including the number of recipients in each age bracket

Thus, we know exactly how many Social Security checks went out in December to people aged 99+ -- 89,106.
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1891656442920276222

According to the US Census, in 2020 we had 80,139 people aged 100+. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/census-briefs/c2020br-06.pdf

The fact that the 99+ bracket is more inclusive than the 100+ bracket accounts for the discrepancy.

There's a reason why 卐LON remains deafeningly silent on the dollar amounts going to those outlandish age brackets - it's because the dollar amount is zero.

ElwoodBlues · M

@sunsporter1649 Show me the name with that date on it and maybe I can tell you! BTW, some trusts are "perpetual" and some may have their own tax ID numbers.

In any case, the Social Security Administration (SSA) halts payments past a certain age (110 or 114); you have to provide proof of life to keep getting checks.

In fact, the SSA publishes tables including the number of recipients in each age bracket.

Thus, we know exactly how many Social Security checks went out in December to people aged 99+ –– 89,106.
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1891656442920276222

According to the US Census, in 2020 we had 80,139 people aged 100+. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/census-briefs/c2020br-06.pdf

The fact that the 99+ bracket is more inclusive than the 100+ bracket accounts for the discrepancy.

There's a reason why 卐LON remains deafeningly silent on the dollar amounts going to those outlandish age brackets - it's because the dollar amount is zero.