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.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.