During last night’s debate, Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan told 24 lies during his 40 minutes of speaking time. But in one instance, he was aided by debate moderator Martha Raddatz, who asserted that Social Security “is going broke”:

RADDATZ: Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? Mr. Ryan.

RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.

Watch it:

The media consistently fuel the misconception that Social Security is bankrupt or going broke, whipping itself into a frenzy of doomsday scenarios and asking politicians when they will deal with this supposedly grave threat to the U.S. budget. However, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, and nearly full benefits for years after that, even if literally nothing is done to change the program. Reporters would surely be shocked if infrastructure projects, child nutrition programs, or any other federal effort were fully funded for more than two decades, but no credit is given to lawmakers for achieving just that with Social Security.

Furthermore, Social Security is statutorily barred from adding to the deficit: the program can’t add to the gap between revenue and spending. Plus, one very simple tweak — lifting the cap on the payroll tax so that it is applied to more of the wealthiest Americans’ income — would ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for more than 70 years.

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said, “Social Security has not added a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has. And for the next 30 years, it won’t do that.” But Ryan consistently raises alarm about the program in an effort to promote his desire to privatize it entirely. In this instance, Raddatz helped him spread his misinformation with her abysmal framing of the question.

Linda McMahon, the former CEO of the World Wrestling Federation and current Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, told a Tea Party gathering earlier this year that she would be open to a change in Social Security that would introduce a “sunset provision,” effectively attaching an expiration date to the social program.

The remarks came during a town hall event in April with local Tea Party groups, but went largely ignored until The Huffington Post flagged the comment yesterday.

At the April Tea Party gathering, McMahon said in response to a question about how to “strengthen” Social Security and Medicare that “we cannot continue doing things the way we are doing with Social Security. We’re just simply going to be bankrupt.”

The candidate later continued, “In other words, I believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation, so that you take a look at it 10, 15 years down the road to make sure that it’s still going to fund itself. Social Security will run out of money if we continue to do what we’re doing, if we rob the trust fund, if we think that there’s any money there.”

Sunset provisions, like the one attached to the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year, require congressional action by a determined date or else the legislation it is attached to expires. Attaching one to Social Security would place the long-term future of the program in jeopardy.

McMahon has already run into some difficulty convincing voters that she isn’t out of touch with the needs of middle class families. Thanks to the low tax rates on investments made by her and her husband, McMahon paid a tax rate of just 15 percent her $30.6 million income in 2010, the most recent year for which she has released her returns. Like fellow millionaire Mitt Romney, McMahon is campaigning on a promise to oppose any increase on her own taxes.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s annual poverty estimates, released today, found that the poverty rate remained stable in 2011 after three consecutive years of rapid increases during and after the Great Recession. But 46.2 million Americans still live in poverty, defined as less than $23,000 in annual income for a family of four.

The data also noted that government benefits played a significant role in keeping millions of Americans — particularly women, children, and the elderly — out of poverty. Social Security alone kept roughly 21.4 million people out poverty, and unemployment benefits helped an additional 2.3 million stave off poverty last year alone.

The Census Bureau estimates it poverty rate based on cash income and assistance, but many government programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and certain tax credits aimed at combating poverty, aren’t included in its income estimates. Including SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, in the Census data would lift another 3.9 million Americans out of poverty, and including the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps low-income taxpayers would bring 5.7 million people above the poverty line. Other tax credits aimed at low-income working families, like the Child Tax Credit, would keep millions more out of poverty if they were included.

This chart from Melissa Boteach, the director of the Poverty to Prosperity program at the Center for American Progress, breaks down how many Americans avoided poverty thanks to certain government programs:

Many of these programs, however, are facing cuts as Congress attempts to reduce the federal budget deficit and national debt. The House Republican budget included massive cuts to SNAP and other food assistance programs; all told, it could have booted millions of people off of food stamps and 280,000 from the school lunch program. Under tax plans put forth by both House and Senate Republicans, meanwhile, 12 million Americans would have lost part or all of the Child Tax Credit, while six million would have lost part or all of the Earned Income Tax Credit, an effective tax hike on millions of families.

Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND) defended his plan to privatize Social Security at a Senate debate yesterday, prompting loud and sustained boos from audience members.

During the North Dakota Broadcasters debate in Bismarck, Berg’s opponent in the Senate race, Heidi Heitkamp, attacked the congressman for supporting privatizing Social Security. “When you say ‘I’m going to fix it,’ you’re going to privatize it,” charged Heitkamp. Indeed, as a state representative in 2005, Berg introduced a resolution formally supporting then-President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

When Berg said that this attack is “what’s wrong with Washington,” he was met with a loud chorus of boos from the audience:

HEITKAMP: When you say “I’m going to fix it,” you’re going to privatize it. That was George W. Bush’s plan. [...] That’s the plan you supported, Bush’s privatization plan. You can’t run away from that record.

BERG: Just as a wrap up, this is what’s wrong with Washington. People blame, blame, blame and don’t come up with solutions… [Loud boos from the audience]… What we need are solutions to Social Security. There’s no question. But what we need is to get our economy going.

Approximately 18 percent of North Dakotans receive Social Security benefits. Their retirement incomes could be threatened if Berg and other conservatives succeed in privatizing Social Security.