The Number of People on Social Security Isn’t Sustainable – Here’s the Problem

What’s going on?

The number of people on Social Security benefits reached a record 61,859,250 last month, according to Social Security Administration data.

CNSNews.com reported that even with the unemployment rate at its lowest since 2000, there are only about two full-time workers for every person on Social Security.

Key statistics:

  • Nearly 62 million people are Social Security beneficiaries.
  • The ratio of workers (including full-time and part-time) to beneficiaries is only about 2.5 to 1.
  • Social Security is heading toward a $12.5 trillion shortfall through 2091.
  • The national debt is at more than $20.6 trillion as of this writing.

What needs to happen next?  

The Social Security board of trustees says Congress needs to increase taxes, cut benefits and/or get some other funds together to pay for Social Security. Whether or not Congress will actually follow that advice remains to be seen.

Learn more about how Social Security works with our explainer here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Last November saw another record in American history. It's not necessarily a good record. Well, I mean, it's not a bad one. But when you know the full story, it's not a good situation.

In November, nearly 62 million people received Social Security benefits. That is a record high number in American history. Sixty-two million. There are just -- there is just shy of 330 million Americans. Sixty-two million receiving Social Security benefits.

Well, I say, it's not necessarily a bad thing that people are retired and receiving money. That's fine. But when you know the full system and you realize how it's strained and how unsustainable it is, and still, we have not addressed it. When you realize what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is, you realize that's not a good thing. It's not sustainable. It is a failure. Parts of it are absolutely evil. Yeah, you don't hear many people challenge that because for years, Social Security was kind of a third rail. You just accepted, that people wanted and liked it.

Well, yeah, if you're retired and on Social Security and you hear people challenge the notion of Social Security, you're like, whoa, whoa, defend what I'm getting. I would never suggest pulling the rug out from underneath people. But over the long haul, this is a system that has to be changed. Let me explain why. In addition to the 62 million people receiving Social Security, the Bureau of Labor statistics reported that currently there are 126 million full-time workers in the US. So that is just over two full-time workers for each person receiving Social Security.

The notion of Social Security was sold as, okay. Everybody makes money. And you pay into this pot. And it grows. And it makes interest. And when you retire, that money will be there.

That's not really how it is. As soon as the government saw big money, those DC people that just like to spend, as soon as they saw millions and then billions of dollars and hundreds of billions and into the trillions of money into Social Security, they went and robbed that lock box.

Remember the lock box? We'll put it in a lock box. There's no lock box. They took and spent that money and essentially replaced it with IOUs. Don't worry. We took this money for some stuff. We'll always pay those Social Security benefits. Don't worry.

They commingled the monies. Instead of having an account over here that Social Security money, that everybody pays into and then we pay money out of it, they just essentially put it in one big general fund with all the other monies.

Well, since we have deficits every year and a growing national debt that is now over $20 trillion, they have to pay those out of whatever we take in every month.

And knowing that we have all that debt, on top of this, sets up a pretty bleak future unless we do something. When this was sold to people, it wasn't just you'll pay into it. But they also said how many people would be paying into it, versus how many people are taking money out. And at one point, it was five, six people paying into it, versus people taking out.

That's when those Baby Boomers were all working. Huge percentage of the population paying in, with only a small percent taking out.

Right now, 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day. Ten thousand every day. So now we're down to two people paying in, for everybody that takes money out. And it's not paying in again to that closed fund. It goes into the general fund. At some point, it will be 1-1. And then 1-2.

And we'll be paying for it. That's unsustainable. That means money that we spend or would spend on other things is going to have to go towards this because of a bad system to begin with, and then mismanagement of a bad system.

The mismanagement being not adjusting for inflation, not adjusting for life expectancy, and retirement ages, and adjusting all of these things. But it was failed to begin with, because you don't get the money. Not in every case.

You could pay in and work hard all your life and then die as you retire. You could die the day after you retire and not collect one penny of all that money you paid into it.

Meanwhile, somebody who has barely worked, done the bare minimum, could retire at -- what is it, 67 now?

Maybe a few years ago, retired at 65, and live to be 130.

More -- taking more years than they ever paid into it with the bare minimum and collect and collect. All of these things are possible. It's a failed system.

If you retire having some sort of retirement account you paid into your whole life and died, that money can go to your whole family. Social Security. No. Not unless they're a minor and you die early and then they can collect up until they're 18.

The number of people that scam the system. The fact that Social Security actually is not a livable wage. Unless you paid off your house or something like that and really made good money where you get the upper level, it's not livable by itself. It doesn't adjust for inflation. Let's stop the insanity of Social Security. No. People that are near retirement or retired, not suggesting we pull the rug out from underneath you. Here's the solution: We set a plan in motion to slowly wind -- wind down Social Security over the next ten, 15, whatever years.

Then if you are retired and you're getting Social Security, you will get it even if you live to be 170. If you are near retirement, you will get it. If you're halfway to retirement in there, we're going to have to make some adjustments. You're going to get what you paid into at least. You're going to get some of that money. But you have time to make some other plans. And we can make sure it's a smooth transition so you're not screwed. People on the younger side, on the lower end, you're going to have to pay some monies in, even though you're not going to get some of that out. Frustrating. Horrible. Yeah.

But that's how it's got to be. And we all end up paying for things that we don't want anyways. This is part of the system.

But under the Doc Thompson plan, if we adjust the true for true tax reform, you should be able to have other tax benefits that will offset that so you are in no worse shape. We simply set a true fair and flat tax. And with that, spending reform, where we stop wasting money on stuff we don't need. Winding down stuff like the Department of Education, which just takes a handling fee at the federal level, to redistribute the money back to the states. We stop growing the federal government. And we return that money to the people, with a grand plan like this, we can finally get out from underneath this evil system of Social Security that takes and doesn't always give even though you've worked.

And a system that is unsustainable and likely to go bankrupt anyway. And there's going to be only one way to prop it up if you want it propped up.

When it eventually fails, they're just going to say, we must raise taxes on some level. Or raise your contributions to Social Security significantly, to pay for other people that are on it right now.

It's wrong. I will reluctantly, even though a Libertarian, go along with the idea that we will force people to pay for their own retirement. You must take five, ten, whatever percent we decide and put it into something you can't touch until you're retired. So you'll force them to be responsible. I hate the notion, but versus having Social Security around, I'm fine with it.

We can at least move to that. Because that is a system where you'll at least get what you paid into it. You can at least give it to your children if you die.

On the Basis of Sex. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you probably didn't expect those five words to come out of me this morning. No, that's not my version of a clickbait headline to get you to pay attention — although that probably just happened — but this is the title to the new movie based on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

RELATED: Here's the Problem With the New Ruth Bader Ginsburg Documentary

Progressives and liberals have been hovering over YouTube like a pack of rabid wolves, anxiously awaiting the first trailer to drop. And — three days — they got their wish. Something in the last few seconds caught my ear. Watch:

Now my first thought after hearing that went something like this: The word "freedom" is literally the fifth frigging word in the first sentence of the First Amendment. It shows up for the second time just two sentences later. How do you screw that up? I always assumed that liberal Hollywood movie makers had never really read the Constitution, but this is just sad.

But my second thought was that maybe they don't consider the Bill of Rights actually part of the Constitution. However, according to the National Constitution Center, the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution — not a separate document — when it was ratified in 1791. This is rather easy to fact check, so there's really no excuse here.

But then I had another thought. Either liberal Hollywood forgot that the Constitution changed in 1791, or they actually prefer the vaguer pre-1791 version of the Constitution where God-given rights can be excluded if the state so pleases. Think about it. The Bill of Rights is the single greatest roadblock to the radical Left's "progress." Do you hate the fact that private gun ownership encourages self reliance and personal freedom? Do you also hate the fact that dissenting views, opinions and speech can't be silenced and crushed? Then the Bill of Rights is a clear and present danger to your agenda. It's enemy number one.

The new Left that is radically moving toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791.

You see, the new Left that is radically moving further toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791. They wish it never happened. The Bill of Rights is a constant reminder that some FREEDOMS can't be given by the government, they're granted by GOD. And that thought — you being aware of that — scares the hell out of them.

Now, it's possible I thought too much into this. It's also possible the screen writer made a simple mistake and thought Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually born before 1791, figuring it would be a nice tip of the hat to her longevity. I can actually see how you could make that mistake. But it's also possible that this is a sign of the times we live in.

The Bill of Rights is under attack, maybe more now than ever. It's never been more important to let the Constitution of 1791 be our guide, true north and lighthouse.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

How did this slip by?

The Left has been foaming at the mouth waiting for this movie to drop and when the trailer finally hit the interwebs, it ended with an embarrassing factual error about the Constitution.

What will happen when the Titan kneels?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

You can tell that the NFL season is approaching because you can hear the whining from highly-paid athletes as they prepare their kneepads for some kneeling.

In May, the NFL instated a policy that penalizes players who take a knee during the national anthem.

RELATED: VIRTUE SIGNALLING: It's time for the NFL to dump the politics

"A club will be fined by the League if its personnel are on the field and do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem," the statement said. "The Commissioner will impose appropriate discipline on league personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."

Tennessee Titan's defensive end Jurrell Casey has decided that he will continue his whining and kneeling.

"I'm going to take my fine," Casey said in an interview. "It is what it is, I ain't going to let them stop me from doing what I want to do. If they want to have these battles between players and organizations, this is the way it's going to be."

Maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics.

He added that "At the end of the day, we got to do a job, but I will continue to use my platform to keep on speaking up."

Yes, he does have a job to do. And that job is playing football. His bosses have made it clear that political activism is not part of the job. Who knows, maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics. There's also Starbucks. They need a self-righteous CEO.

All anyone can talk about right now is Russia and collusion, and for good reason. Special Counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for cyber attacks and the hacking of cyber-systems in energy, nuclear, water, and manufacturing sectors which you can read about here.

RELATED: There are three tribes when it comes to Trump and Russia: Which tribe do you belong to?

The Trump-Russia scandal, in a word, is maniacal. There are many moving parts that are very hard to solve — or simply don't want to be solved. All of these are "mysteries wrapped in an enigma," asserted Glenn on Wednesday's episode of "The Glenn Beck Radio Program."



From the curious case of Imran Awan to the hacking of DNC servers to "Russian" meddling in elections via social media, all of these deserve scrutiny.

On today's episode, Glenn examined seven scandals that make up the Russia connection:

  1. Russian operatives who used social media to divide Americans during the 2016 election.
  2. The meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
  3. The Fusion GPS Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
  4. Voter fraud in Illinois.
  5. Hillary Clinton's emails.
  6. Imran Awan. Awan was an IT staffer for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who was part of a federal investigation and was arrested on bank fraud charges.
  7. Lastly, the 2016 DNC email leaks.

For the entire explanation, tune into the podcast below:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn Beck argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.

Tribe one is the #Resistance. They are the ones who believe that everything President Trump does is bad. They're also the ones who call for impeachment and who label President Trump a "treasonous traitor" even before a summit with a foreign leader takes place.

RELATED: Russia hacking Hillary's emails is no laughing matter

Those, according to Glenn's analysis, include groups like Think Progress, who published an article suggesting that women's rights would be rolled back if the President's SCOTUS nominee is confirmed by the Senate. This tribe also includes progressive talking heads and far Left publications and politicians like The New York Times and Hillary Clinton.

Tribe two are those who defend the President and his actions at all costs. He can do no wrong. These are the people who deny the President's mistakes. They believe the President is a master chess player and everyone else is a pawn in Trump's game.

Both who operate in tribes one and two maintain a "win at all costs" mentality. They don't care what happens as long as their side wins. Glenn calls this a "cult of personality madness."

Tribe three are those who are "free thinkers." These people question the President with boldness and aim for intellectual honesty when evaluating the President's policies and behavior.

Glenn believes tribe one and tribe two are smaller than tribe three.

So, what do all these tribes have to do with Trump and the Russians? Find out in the clip below.

Where do you fall when it comes to Trump and Russia?

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.