6.6 Million in US over 112

Social Security Database lists over 6 600 000 people over the age of 112. One person is listed as being born in 1869.

Govt keeps telling us they have cut everything to the bone. How many people do you know or have heard of that are over 112? How can there be 6.6 million of them in the US?

There is your commission right there.

I think Nancy Pelosi might actually be over 112…fibbing to make that 80 sound youthful.


Look at the bright side…it’s better than the accuracy of our voter rolls. :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:


That’s over 7 billion in minimum stipends.


Born in 1869 imagine all the history that person has witnessed. They should be doing a biopic on his/her life.

They saw the end of reconstruction, the first flight, the first cars, two world wars, the entire cold war, Chernobyl.

It’s freaking nuts.

1 Like

Really old news


From 2015? OP must be catching up on news stories he missed. Next we will hear about how the UK voted for Brexit.

OP, any recent updates on whether the SSA fixed this issue?

1 Like

:+1: :rofl:

At 152 years old, that would be quite a story

It’s fraudulent use of ssn.

Doubtful it was fixed under the Obama/trump admins.

And I don’t think it’s a priority for biden.


It’s been known for while and nobody done anything about it. Same with medicare/medicaid.

Newt and Clinton was going to tackle that corruption before repugs drove Newt out. At the time when NYSlime actually did some investigation journalism…they found that 25 to 30 percent of it was waste/fraud etc. And till this day nothing was done about it.


Do you have a link to this Slimes story?

Went looking for this supposed 30% fraud rate in the Times and found this one guy who profited quite handsomely from Medicare fraud.

1 Like

If you look at the date of the video, it was posted by Forbes on Saturday, 22 May 2021…2 days ago.

So no, as the OP I am not posting on stories from 6 years ago or the vote on Brexit.

I have no idea whether the SSA fixed this, But I sincerely doubt it since Rand Paul spoke about it on Saturday, two days ago.

By reading your post, it looks as though you are trying to dismiss the issue because you read about it in 2015. Is that your contention? If so, why should we fix anything if it it could simply be labeled old news? Am I reading you correctly that issues like climate change shouldnt be tackled because they came to light in 1999…22 years ago? Is this really where you are trying to go? If that is not where you are trying to go, what was the reason for your post?


I’m sure they were all sent ballots and voted in this past election.


And voter rolls. :man_shrugging:


Yes…that too.

Ignore them.

Libs like to dismiss and deflect.


Yes but the original story was 6 years ago.

It’s old news.