Venezuelan Busted For Extorting Illegals In PA Exposes Evil Side Effect Of Biden’s Open Borders

One immigration expert referred to it as 'new age slavery' that traps people in a spiral of debt.

Chip Roy Fears GOP Lawmakers Will Seek To Stonewall Trump’s Agenda ‘Behind The Scenes’

'This is the natural way of things for Republicans in Washington'

From Roosevelt to ruin: Social Security’s failed promises



Of all the deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people, one of them — the Social Security Act — gets far too little attention. Buckle up, because this is a wild ride.

In 1935, the American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told, “Pay into this system, and it’ll be your money for retirement.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?

The government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership but gives you a tax receipt.

But here’s where it gets juicy, in an ugly way. Two years later, when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, the government did a complete 180.

The government — through Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson — argued in essence, “Oh no, this isn’t your money at all. This is a tax, and we can do whatever we want with it.” Classic bait and switch.

Let’s not forget the ruling in Helvering v. Davis, where the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act by embracing the government’s argument and admission that what people pay into Social Security is tax revenue — available to be used as Congress may direct — and not at all money belonging to those who paid it.

To summarize: The proponents of the Social Security Act told American workers that what they paid into the system would remain their money, not the government’s — to get Congress to pass it — and then told the courts the exact opposite when defending the constitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court accepted the government’s argument, to the great detriment of the American people.

Now, let’s talk about what happens to “your money” once it’s in the government's hands. Spoiler alert: It’s not managed like your IRA or 401(k).

First, this money doesn’t sit in a nice, individual account with your name on it. No, it goes into a huge account called the “Social Security Trust Fund.” But here’s the kicker — the government routinely raids this fund. Yes, you heard that right. The government takes “your money” and uses it for whatever the current Congress deems “necessary.”

Every few years, there’s talk in Congress about “saving Social Security.” I’ve introduced and co-sponsored a number of measures over the years that would fix it. But most in Congress show little desire to fix it and are instead constantly looking for ways to “borrow” from it — with no plan to put it back.

And the returns? Forget about compound interest or stock market gains. Your “investment” in Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation.

If you had put the same amount into literally anything else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account — you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!

Do the math: With Social Security, you’re looking at a return that's pathetic compared to market averages. It’s not even an investment. It’s a tax.

And let’s talk about how this system is set up to fail. The demographic shift? More retirees, fewer workers. It’s almost fair to compare it to a Ponzi scheme that’s running out of new investors. Every dollar you pay into Social Security, only to see it gobbled up by the government itself, is a dollar you can’t invest in your own future. It’s government dependency at its worst.

Remember, this isn’t just about retirement. It’s about independence, about controlling your own destiny. With Social Security, you control nothing.

The government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership but gives you a tax receipt.

And don’t get me started on the management. The Social Security Administration is a bureaucratic behemoth, not exactly known for its efficiency or innovation. If you think your money is safe there, you’re in for a rude awakening. The mismanagement, the waste, the deception — it’s all on display.

So what’s the solution? We need real, genuine reform. Within the Social Security system, Americans should be able to invest in their own future and not be shackled by the worst parts of this outdated, mismanaged system.

It’s time we acknowledge the truth: Social Security as it now exists isn’t a retirement plan; it’s a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought. We were sold a dream but received a nightmare. It’s time for a wake-up call. We need real reform.

It’s time for Americans to know the true history of the Social Security Act. The more people learn the truth, the more they’ll start demanding answers, options, and real reform from Congress. Please help spread the word.

The history of the Social Security Act — which sadly must include the deceptive way it was sold to the American people — is yet another reason why America’s century-long era of progressive government must be brought to a close.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally as a post on X (formerly Twitter).

The real reason conservatives are voting against a Social Security bill



Congress is voting on a pair of Social Security bills that will address the benefit structure of the program, but only one is favored among hardline conservatives.

Congress has the choice between H.R. 82, known as the Social Security Fairness Act, and H.R. 5342, known as the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act. Both would address the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset, which adjust Social Security benefits for employees based on whether their jobs paid into the system.

There is also concern about the potential backlash for moving a bill this consequential through a discharge petition, which deprives congressmen of the opportunity to amend or debate a bill before voting on it.

H.R. 82 would get rid of the WEP and GPO altogether while H.R. 5342 would amend them. As a result, some conservatives like Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas have objected to H.R. 82 and favored H.R. 5342, citing fiscal concerns.

By eliminating both provisions, H.R. 82 would add nearly $200 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade, according to a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

"This bill irresponsibly eliminates Social Security’s WEP and Government Pension Offset, which means some retirees already covered by government pensions could receive an unfair windfall from Social Security at the expense of other retirees," Roy told Blaze News in an exclusive statement. "The Congressional Budget Office estimates H.R. 82 would cost taxpayers a whopping $200 billion and will accelerate Social Security’s insolvency – threatening benefits for every American currently paying into the system and those currently receiving benefits."

On the other hand, H.R. 5342 will make a smaller contribution to the national debt, which is now approaching $36 trillion.

"H.R. 5342 will cost somewhere from [$25-30 billion] over 10 years and will not hasten Social Security's insolvency," a spokesman from Roy's office told Blaze News in an exclusive statement.

"Many of America’s police, firefighters, teachers, and other public servants have unfairly seen their Social Security benefits reduced because of the poorly crafted WEP, despite many of these individuals paying into Social Security while working other jobs," Roy told Blaze News in an exclusive statement.

"H.R. 5342, which I have co-sponsored since coming to Congress in 2019, would have responsibly addressed the problems stemming from WEP without accelerating Social Security’s insolvency," Roy continued. "It was designed to replace the unfair, slipshod WEP with a new and carefully considered benefit formula to ensure these Americans get the benefits they deserve. At the same time, it would have provided monthly rebates to current beneficiaries to offset the impacts of the WEP."

There is also concern about the potential backlash for moving a bill this consequential through a discharge petition, which deprives congressmen of the opportunity to amend or debate a bill before voting on it.

"Just imagine if we did this to jam through something like, say, congressional stock trading next Congress," Roy's spokesman told Blaze News.

"If we want this program to be there – if we want our country to be there – for future generations, we need to make choices that do right by people with what they have earned, and to do that with a clear-eyed view of our fiscal challenges," Roy told Blaze News in an exclusive statement. "That is why Congress has a duty to responsibly and fairly protect Social Security benefits for all Americans both today and tomorrow. That is what I voted for today."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Can’t Derail Social Security, But Harris’ Filibuster Plans Can

Harris and her allies, not Trump, want to eliminate the biggest guardrail preventing partisan changes to Social Security.

Washington Reined In 2024 Spending By ‘Only’ Burning Through $1.9 Trillion More Than It Brought In

Lawmakers’ unabated desire to spend money we don’t have jeopardizes our national security — and our future.

There is a silent crisis growing in our society. But are we prepared to face it?



We are preoccupied with a great variety of problems. Some of us are concerned about climate change. Others detail the continuing fallout from COVID. Still another group looks with alarm upon the aggression of Russia and the growing appetite for power that appears to accompany China’s ascent. Many view the burst of innovation surrounding artificial intelligence as a major threat.

But there is another, much less heralded crisis going largely unaddressed that has the potential to affect virtually everyone physically, mentally, and spiritually.

That crisis has to do with the vast growth of an aging population accompanied by diminishing numbers of young people.

It has been known for some time that our entitlement programs that provide for the old are on an unsustainable path. Social Security, for example, began with a veritable army of young workers available to support the benefits awarded to each senior citizen. Over time, that margin has eroded drastically. While there were once more than 40 workers per beneficiary, the ratio is now closer to 2-1. The same problem applies to Medicare.

Western nations are facing this problem as a group. This much is well understood. What is less well understood is how to solve the problem as we continue to have fewer children but more old people who live longer. Any attempted reform appears to be a political nonstarter. And in the relatively near future, these programs are likely to become unsustainable.

But that problem is only the tip of the iceberg for modern societies such as America. We have been economically mobile. Families are spread out in sometimes distant locations across the generations. Elderly parents grow increasingly infirm without any immediate family in the area. Family ties are often strained because of divorces and other domestic disruptions. The once-large network of siblings who could divide up tasks of caring for parents has contracted substantially.

We need to develop more robust family, church, and community ties. Our families must grow closer together rather than more attenuated and spread out.

In addition, the two-income family has replaced the old single-provider model (virtually out of economic necessity) in which women stayed at home and tended to provide care for both younger and older generations.

Finally, and crucially, the old are living so long that their children who must care for them are often elderly themselves and can be easily overwhelmed by the task.

This last point threatens to be a straw that breaks the camel’s back as people who are already becoming less capable and less flexible are asked to make incredibly difficult decisions about their parents. Those decisions can be even more challenging when finances are not sufficient to support several years of expensive care in assisted living or nursing homes.

Under our current system, many families will exhaust the assets of their elderly parents and then have no choice other than to go through a process of pauperization as they transition to a Medicaid facility unless they are able to handle the caregiving themselves. There is little doubt that many people will find themselves beyond their resources and their own expectations and preparation as they encounter this problem.

The first two areas have to do with stewardship of resources. We all need to consider how to prepare ourselves and our families financially as best we can. That may require significantly less focus on accumulating goods and travel experiences and more on saving to provide for our future needs and for those we love.

In addition, American public policy will have to take greater account of the perilous dynamic of a large aging population supported by a smaller population of younger people.

Most important, however, is that we will have to become stronger spiritually and more connected as we try to face the crisis. We need to develop more robust family, church, and community ties. Our families must grow closer together rather than more attenuated and spread out.

How many of us can remember growing up surrounding by large numbers of relatives at family gatherings on birthdays and holidays? How many likewise have seen the decline of such events? How many have expectations of their church body (if they have a church at all) that are more oriented toward a consumer or entertainment experience than toward serious spiritual formation and filial relationships?

The challenge of aging parents and grandparents who reach the point of not being able to care for themselves is more pressing than it has ever been. Earlier generations were better situated and better prepared to deal with realities of aging than we are.

We need to start weaving the spiritual and social fabric back together, so that we can be responsible and loving toward our mothers and fathers.

House Report Shows California’s Covid Fraud Was So Much Worse Than You Think

Estimates of Covid fraud in California range from $20-32 billion.

Biden Couldn’t Even Make It 48 Hours Without Using Extreme Rhetoric Against Trump

After calling for everyone to 'lower the temperature in our politics,' Joe Biden couldn't even last 48 hours without lashing out at Trump.

Biden Peddles Three Delusional Lies In His Desperate Letter To Dems

Joe Biden published a letter Monday morning riddled with delusions and lies in the wake of widespread criticism of his debate performance.