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 thepast 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 beenif 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.)

This MUST be why Trump (allegedly) had NUCLEAR documents at Mar-a-Lago

Photo by (Left) Win McNamee/ (Right) Bettmann /Contributor/Getty Images

According to the Washington Post's "anonymous sources," the FBI was looking for documents related to nuclear weapons during its raid of Mar-a-Lago.

Who could have guessed what Donald Trump did with those documents (never mind that he allegedly had them for over a year before the FBI actually did anything)? And who knows why they were searching through Melania's drawers for such top-secret information? Also, isn't it interesting that even after both Attorney General Merrick Garland and Donald Trump asked for the search warrant to be unsealed, only this very unspecific and very damning bit of information was "leaked" to the Washington Post? And just a few months before the midterm elections?

Since the DOJ still hasn't told us much (what was leaked to the media), Glenn did his best to present a few "theories" of his own on "The Glenn Beck Program" Friday. Watch the video clip below to hear more from "The Glenn Beck Program." Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

New details emerge about Trump raid — and 'it doesn't look good for the FBI'

Photo by Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images

New, alleged details about the raid of former President Donald Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago hint that it's "not looking good for the FBI," said BlazeTV host Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday.

Trump has faced attacks from every direction, but despite all of it, he has "not been found guilty or had any kind of real, solid evidence against him," Glenn pointed out.

Glenn detailed a long list of investigations, accusations, and lawsuits against Trump, and the latest puzzling revelations about the FBI's raid of Mar-a-Lago, which only seem to raise even more questions. For example, did agents truly refuse to give Trump's lawyer a copy of the warrant upon arriving at the home? Because sources have alleged that his attorney was kept "10 feet away from the warrant" and was not allowed to actually read it. If that's true, then it was absolutely against the law.

Then there was the inordinate amount of time spent going through Melania Trump's closet. And did they have the proper authority to break into Trump's safe?

"That warrant had better damn well say that they can break into that safe because the law is, you can't go into somebody's house and ... just tear it all apart," Glenn said. "You have to have a pretty good idea of where things might be located, and you ask for permission for those areas. And you have to know exactly what you're looking for, and if it's in a safe, you need to specifically say, 'it's in a safe and we're having a safe cracker come in.' If they didn't say in the warrant that they could crack his safe, it's the fruit of the poisoned tree. By the way, there was nothing in the safe."

Glenn also explained that the FBI broke into a specific "safe room" that contained national archives, which Trump was allegedly told by investigators to keep in a locked room.

"[Trump] made a safe room, and put two locks on it, at their request. And that's what they broke into," Glenn said. "This doesn't look good for the FBI," he added.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from "The Glenn Beck Program." Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


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.

There’s an economic axis of evil taking shape right now, and the people in charge of our government are too stupid to acknowledge and deal with what’s happening. The U.S. dollar and the entire financial system are at stake, and, as Glenn Beck reveals on "Glenn TV" Wednesday, our enemies’ PUBLISHED plans to take the entire thing down.

While all of this is happening, our own leaders are making everything worse. We’ve got Nancy Pelosi risking an international incident, accelerating China’s plans to collapse us. And when Biden SHOULD be focusing on the security of our country, he’s instead preoccupied with controlling the weather with his Inflation "Reduction" Act.

Glenn exposes the TRUE numbers on what that bill will do to your family’s budget. Add to that, they’re more than doubling the IRS to make sure you feel the pain. And if you think they won’t come for you, look at what they just did to the former president of the United States. The DOJ and FBI just went after the political opponent of their boss, Joe Biden.

This is what they are focused on, and the threat to the dollar — and the entire financial system — isn’t even on their radar. Pain is coming for us, and they don’t care one bit.

Watch the full episode 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.

Speaking before signing the “PACT Act of 2022” on Wednesday morning, President Joe Biden claimed that his wonderful economic plan "is working" and that somehow July’s annual inflation rate of 8.5% was actually “zero.”

“I just want to say a number: zero. Today we received news that our economy had 0% inflation in the month of July,” Biden said during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre dutifully echoed the president's not-at-all misleading claim:

The truth of the matter is that last month's inflation rate of 8.5% was a (small) step in the right direction, but only because it was lower than June's 41-year high of 9.1% — and the thing is, anyone who's graduated kindergarten knows it.

So, who do White House personnel think they're fooling? On the radio program Wednesday, Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguiere broke down how the Biden administration came to this latest disingenuous conclusion about the economy, what the latest consumer price index actually shows, and why the inevitable Biden brag-fest will be unbearable.

Watch the video clip below. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.