Democrat lies at least 13 times in one commercial.

Actually, in one sentence.  This tactic is being used in races all around the country.  It’s the claim that (INSERT NAME HERE) Republican supported the privatization of social security-and if that plan would have been implemented-retirees would have lost half of their social security.

Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania has a particularly bad example against his opponent Mike Fitzpatrick. The commercial ends with a rotund elderly gentlewoman looking sadly into the camera and saying something like “Mike Fitzpatrick…I can’t live on half of my social security.”

You get the premise—the market has been a nightmare for the past few years.Therefore, if you had a privatized fund, you’d be screwed!  This is so completely dishonest it’s hard to list all the ways…but let’s try.

(This is pretty long-so, feel free to skip to the end for the one gigantic run on sentence to summarize all of the lies.)

1)    If you are in retirement today—it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE for you to have lost ANYTHING if the privatization plan had been implemented. The social security “privatization” plan did not allow anyone under the age of 55 to participate in it when it launched.  Even if you wanted to. PERIOD.

2)    Let’s ignore that. If you could have joined…then would you have been forced to lose 50%?  No…even when implemented, you would have had to volunteer to be enrolled in it.  It was optional.  You could not have lost money unless you volunteered for the program.

3)    Let’s ignore that. If it was mandatory…and you were exactly 5 years before retirement when the plan was implemented 5 years ago, and you were forced into the program-what would have happened?  Would you have lost 50%?  Nope.  “Why not?  The market did drop by about half!”  True.  But, it also bounced back.  And you would have been buying it when it was low.  In fact, you would have bought the market at an average of about 10,959 over those five years. So, if you emptied the account all at once today, you’d actually STILL be up about 1.3%–even after the worst financial collapse since the great depression.  Oops.*

4)    Let’s ignore that. Let’s assume that the market can’t rebound.  Let’s assume you were forced at gunpoint to sell at the lowest possible market level in the last five years.   Would you lose 50% then?  Nope.  Why?  You could only invest $1,000 per year in the privatized part of the plan.  Even including yearly increases that wouldn’t have kicked in back then, the maximum you could have invested in the privatized fund since 2005 would have been about $1,210 per year.  Even in a world where you could only sell your privatized fund at the lowest point in the market-you’d only be down about $3,600-about 1% of the expected social security payout of someone retiring today.

5)    Let’s ignore that. What if the plan was fully implemented-so there weren’t those pesky yearly limits.  Could you lose 50% then?  Nope.  The absolute maximum you could ever invest in the privatized part of the plan would be about 32% of your social security. Meaning that over 68% of the fund would remain the exact same as it is now.  Therefore, even if you had invested every penny possible into your privatized plan over a lifetime, and you pulled it out on the day the market dropped to half of the average you bought it at, you still would only lose 16%.

6)    Let’s ignore that. 16% is still a lot-right?   It sure is, the only problem is-the plan made it essentially IMPOSSIBLE to lose 16% in this situation.  Why?  Because, even if you were a complete moron who wanted to pull out all of your money on the worst possible day that the market would allow—the rules wouldn’t allow it.   As the plan specifically stated: “Personal retirement accounts would not be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits.”   So, even if you were the most unlucky person on the planet-the plan would stop you from losing all of that money-because you’d have to ride it out over time, allowing the market to bounce back.

7)    Let’s ignore that. Let’s say you had no memory of all that we’ve learned so far.  “All of your money is at risk in the market!  And if you pull it out at the worst possible time, you’d lose 50%!! PANIC!!”   Ooooh…sorry.  Actually, the plan would automatically transfer you out of the riskier fund beginning about 18 years before retirement, unless you specifically told them to do otherwise.  Cass Sunstein fans celebrate-you’d have to specifically veto the nudge of a less risky plan to be more risky.

8)    Let’s ignore that. Sure, every other argument of a 50% loss has been completely demolished—but what about if people started taking the funds out early ?  Ooooops again. If I may quote: “American workers who choose personal retirement accounts would not be allowed to make withdrawals from, take loans from, or borrow against their accounts prior to retirement.”

9)    Let’s say they ignored all of that and went in another direction…(which they have to do when pressed.) Every one of these candidates knows that this “blame the market” approach is complete and utter BS…even in the worst economic times we’ve experienced in the past 50 years.  So, instead, they say Bush wanted to decrease benefits.  Wrong.  He proposed that benefits be indexed to inflation-essentially guaranteeing that they would never be decreased.

10)   Let’s ignore that, and instead act like indexing to inflation is a cut.  How?  Well, they try to stake their claim on the way Bush was indexing the increases in benefits.  Bush basically said “index the benefits to inflation”-while they are now indexed to wages.  So, because inflation usually rises at a slightly slower rate than wages-the Bush plan is supposedly “cutting” benefits compared to what they would have been if they were indexed to wages.  Get it?  So, it’s not a cut at all, it’s only a cut from what benefits would have been if you had indexed them at a higher rate.

11)     Let’s ignore that. Let’s say that they actually believe that indexing something to inflation is completely unfair.  Well-then we finally find our 50% cut…right?  Wrong.  That’s actually still not based on the plan Bush supported. His indexing was more of a hybrid, in between the “wages” and “inflation” measures.  Bush’s inflation-indexing-horror-show would only fake-cut benefits by 28%…not 50%.  By the way, all of these “cut” numbers come from the completely objective source of Barack Obama’s own economic advisors.

12)     Let’s ignore that. Even if you disregard all of this-even if you ignored all of the clauses in the law that would stop these disastrous events– could the lady in the ad REALLY see a 50% cut in her benefits?? ?  Sure.   But, she would have to live to be 130 years old.  You see, these percentages of the fake-cut wouldn’t occur until the year 2075—again-according to Obama’s own advisors.

13) Let’s ignore that. No, we’re not done.  Because to get that 50% cut, in 2075, you’d have to ignore the long-term gains of the privatization plan.  I’m not going to go through the hassle of running the numbers of 65 years of investments, but rest assured you’d be able to beat the 1.2% return of social security by quite a bit.  Especially considering the Dow is up over 7,200% in that time.

Of course, the actual return on social security isn’t 1.2%–it’s negative.  There’s already nothing left-it’s all been spent by the government in other places. But, if you’re worried that you’re going to wind up with nothing unless someone implements a plan like privatization—don’t.    Ending up with nothing—is actually far better than what we’re going to wind up with.  We’re getting debt.  Trillions of dollars worth.  We will pray for the blessing of only receiving nothing.

So, now that I’ve turned one sentence of a commercial into well over 1,000 words–what have we learned about this claim (in one run-on sentence)?

As long as you ignore that you had to be less than 55, and that the plan was completely optional, and that you’d still be up if it started in 2005, and that you couldn’t invest more than $1,000 per year, and that you could never invest more than a third in privatization, and that you couldn’t empty the fund all at once, and that you’d be transferred out of a risky fund automatically as you neared retirement,  and that you couldn’t empty the fund early, and that benefits wouldn’t be cut, and that Bush didn’t support the type of indexing they’re referring to, and that they mysteriously doubled the non-existent cuts, and that it would only effect someone today if they lived to 130 years old, and if you ignore the long term track record of the market, and if there was any actual money left in social security, and we could pay for it—then the commercial was completely truthful.  Good job democrats!

Read more, as if this wasn’t long enough, here and here.

*(Using the Dow as a simplified tool throughout.)

There is no transparency when it comes to the Biden administration, and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz's recent exchange with the FBI’s Jill Sanborn is just another example. When questioned about alleged involvement the FBI had on January 6, 2021, Sanborn refused to answer almost every single time.

Do our government officials still work for us? Take a look at the latest headlines: The DOJ and U.S. Army are preparing for possible conflicts with "domestic terrorists," Biden's education secretary allegedly requested the NSBA letter that suggested treating upset parents like domestic terrorists, and President Biden said if you're not with him on the Democrats' voting bills, then you're with the Confederacy. Meanwhile, the FBI won't tell Congress whether it was involved in the the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and the corporate media insists that there's nothing to see here, especially concerning Ray Epps.

The American people are concerned, and it’s "extraordinarily disturbing" how far the federal government goes to avoid answering our questions, Glenn Beck said on the radio program. There's a very odd growing trend here: Our leaders, including the unelected ones, no longer answer to the people. This must stop now.

"The question that I have is, where is the transparency? And is anyone going to be held accountable? They are not afraid of our senators. They are not afraid of Congress," he stated. "This has got to stop. They have got to answer to the law. This is an oversight committee. Who is in charge, the FBI or the people? Once the people are not in charge and are not allowed to see the secret documents, we are toast. Toast!"

Watch the video clip below to hear for more from Glenn:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Have you ever wondered why so many insane things are happening simultaneously RIGHT NOW? Big corporations are going woke. The stock market got red-hot during a FORCED recession. Stores like Walmart and Target were allowed to stay open during the lockdown, but mom-and-pop stores on Main Street had to close, some of them forever.

On Wednesday's "GlennTV" special, Glenn Beck explains it all in this sneak-peek episode — a primer to his new book and the upcoming explosive, in-depth special: “The Great Reset: Joe Biden & the Rise of 21st-Century Fascism.” Co-author Justin Haskins joins along with Glenn’s head writer and researcher, Jason Buttrill, to answer audience questions about a topic that the media has tried to censor and “fact-check.” You will be equipped with everything you need to know about what the global elites of the world have planned for the transformation of society and YOUR life.

Watch the full episode of "Glenn TV" below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

After new information came out that suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci intimidated and bribed scientists into dismissing the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, Sen. Rand Paul and Fauci got into a heated debate in a Senate hearing. But instead of providing answers, Fauci accused Sen. Paul of endangering him.

Sen. Paul joined "The Glenn Beck Program" Wednesday with his response and explained why he believes "people live in fear of what [Fauci] will do to them."

"It's all about money. If you cross Tony Fauci, you don't get your money. He controls the purse strings for the entire country, the entire university system. And he's been doing it for forty years," Sen. Paul began.

"It's consistent with his arrogance, this level of arrogance that he's developed. He said several weeks ago, that he is science and any attack on him is an attack on science. Yesterday, he said anybody who opposes him is encouraging death threats," he added.

"Look, I've been on the receiving end of semi-automatic gunfire. I was 20 yards away from Steve Scalise when he almost died. I was 10 feet away from a staffer that was shot. And, you know what? The guy doing the shooting was a Bernie Sanders supporter. But not one of us, not one of the Republicans on the ball field, said, 'Oh, it was Bernie Sanders' fault.' But that's the juvenile level of personal attack that Fauci is now stooping to. He is saying that the personal threats he gets are actually the fault of his critics."

Sen. Paul continued, "But the thing is, [Fauci] needs to answer the question. Everything he did in the committee yesterday was misdirection so he didn't have to answer the question. The question was, why did he smear three scientists from Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard? Why did he smear them as fringe epidemiologists? And why did he conspire against Francis Collins to take them down in a very public way? He wouldn't answer the question."

Watch the video clip below to hear more of Glenn's conversation with Sen. Rand Paul:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Over the past year, an increasing number of voices on the left have pushed for radical changes to our way of life, from reforming capitalism to enacting strict vaccine mandates. But are the American people behind these changes? A recent poll from the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen sought to find out, and the results are startling. The three-part poll asked likely voters for their thoughts on the Great Reset (half said they don't know what that is), COVID-19 authoritarianism, and whether they prefer former President Donald Trump or President Joe Biden.

The Heartland Institute's Justin Haskins joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to break down the results of this exclusive poll, including the disturbing revelation that roughly half of Democrats polled supported shockingly authoritarian COVID-19 policies. For example, nearly half of Democrats polled said they think federal or state governments should require unvaccinated people to live in "designated areas or facilitates," or essentially camps. Nearly half of Democrats supported a proposal "to fine or imprison individuals" just for questioning the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. And, when asked if people who refuse to get vaccinated should lose custody of their children, 20% of Democrats answered "yes."

But the poll showed some good news, too. Watch the video clip below for more details:


Glenn and Justin’s new book, ‘The Great Reset: Joe Biden And The Rise Of 21st Century Fascism’ is available to order now.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.