Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

December 29, 2017
Staff

WRITER

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.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Glenn unveils CIA’s grim Dire Wolf conspiracy

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.