It adds $200 billion in new spending.

Rand tried to add an amendment to increase the age of full retirement to 70 to offset this increased spending. It got 3 votes.

Quote:

---

The Senate passed legislation early Saturday to boost Social Security payments for millions of people...

...

Social Security Trust Funds were already estimated to be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2035, and the change will hasten the program's insolvency date by about half a year

---

https://www.kget.com/news/politics/ap-senate-to-take-final-vote-on-boosting-social-security-benefits-for-many-public-service-retirees/

Don't public employees pay less into the system?

Logos Stick said:

---

It adds $200 billion in new spending.

Rand tried to add an amendment to increase the age of full retirement to 70 to offset this increased spending. It got 3 votes.

Quote:

---

The Senate passed legislation early Saturday to boost Social Security payments for millions of people...

...

Social Security Trust Funds were already estimated to be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2035, and the change will hasten the program's insolvency date by about half a year

---

https://www.kget.com/news/politics/ap-senate-to-take-final-vote-on-boosting-social-security-benefits-for-many-public-service-retirees/

---

The more things change...

MaroonStain said:

---

SS gets paid out of General Fund. There is not SS account. Gaslighting 103.

---

It gets paid out of the SS money collected for the year.

Ag with kids said:

---

What sucks for me is that it's gonna go insolvent right about the time I get eligible...

---

Explain to me like I am a t-sip, what exactly is going to go insolvent?

- going to go insolvent like defense spending and welfare?

- simply going to start consuming more tax dollars than it is taking in and going to have to start consuming some of the previous surplus funds that are sitting in Fort Knox or federal debt instruments held by the treasury (lol)?

- going to have to go back to just funding the simple retirement funds it was originally intended to provide and kill all the "add on programs" that have been tacked on in the last forty years? Prescription benefits for example.

My guess is that when a politician or federal bureaucrat says "it's going to go insolvent"…what they mean is "oh crap, we are going to have to start funding the previous surpluses we consumed with other spending on other things by issuing more debt….or maybe by saying 'insolvent'…that will make it easier to raise taxes and/or extend the retirement age once again so that once again we can declare it 'solvent' and start tacking other spending government benefits on to the program without having to say they will need to raise taxes to pay for those new benefits."

That's simply the date when more is taken out than paid in. It's not a meaningless date. And yes, the SS money has been used for general budget items for years.

The point here is that we've hit the iceberg and are dancing around on the deck. Everyone was focused on the additional spending in the omnibus CR yet this new spending on Social Security - passed last night - seems to have been ignored.

lb3 said:

---

Hint: It's already insolvent. It has been paying out more than it brings in for years. There is no lock box and not trust fund.

---

Oh...I know that.

I've had this article bookmarked for years since it does a great job explaining it...

Quote:

---

The real problem starts only a decade or so from now, when Social Security begins to take in less cash than it spends.

How can I say that, given Social Security's $2.3 trillion (and growing) trust fund? It's because the fund owns nothing but Treasury securities. Normally, of course, Treasury securities are the safest thing you can hold in a retirement account. But Social Security's Treasurys won't help cover the program's cash shortfall because Social Security is part of the federal government. Having one arm of the government (Social Security) own IOUs from another arm (the Treasury) doesn't help the government as a whole cover its bills.

Here's why the trust fund has no financial value. Say that Social Security calls the Treasury sometime in 2017 and says it needs to cash in $20 billion of securities to cover benefit checks. The only way for the Treasury to get that money is for the rest of the government to spend $20 billion less than it otherwise would (fat chance!), collect more in taxes (ditto), or borrow $20 billion more (which is what would happen). The spend-less, collect-more, and borrow-more options are exactly what they would be if there were no trust fund. Thus, the trust fund doesn't make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security's cash shortfalls than if there were no trust fund.

---

The pigs are gloating

Sen. Rand Paul's amendment to raise Social Security retirement age to 70 fails by a vote of 3-93.

Sen. Schumer: "Came close. Came close." pic.twitter.com/QnEkVMR9NO

— Jeremy Art (@cspanJeremy) December 21, 2024

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Don't public employees pay less into the system?

---

Some public employees pay zero into Social Security.

Most typically teachers. But other local government and county government employees often have their own retirement funds.

Last night, I was discussing this topic with a family member who is a retired teacher. I think a lot of it has to do with eligibility for receiving their spouse's social security after they die. And some of it has to do with social security distribution from jobs they worked other than being a teacher, fireman etc.

Logos Stick said:

---

That's simply the date when more is taken out than paid in. It's not a meaningless date. And yes, the SS money has been used for general budget items for years.

The point here is that we've hit the iceberg and are dancing around on the deck. Everyone was focused on the additional spending in the omnibus CR yet this new spending on Social Security - passed last night - seems to have been ignored.

---

It's a completely meaningless date. The day before that date we will be funding X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund. On magic date +1 we will still be paying the same X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund.

Isn't fiat with no budgeting or accountability great?

HarleySpoon said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

What sucks for me is that it's gonna go insolvent right about the time I get eligible...

---

Explain to me like I am a t-sip, what exactly is going to go insolvent?

- going to go insolvent like defense spending and welfare?

- simply going to start consuming more tax dollars than it is taking in and going to have to start consuming some of the previous surplus funds that are sitting in Fort Knox or federal debt instruments held by the treasury (lol)?

- going to have to go back to just funding the simple retirement funds it was originally intended to provide and kill all the "add on programs" that have been tacked on in the last forty years? Prescription benefits for example.

My guess is that when a politician or federal bureaucrat says "it's going to go insolvent"…what they mean is "oh crap, we are going to have to start funding the previous surpluses we consumed with other spending on other things by issuing more debt….or maybe by saying 'insolvent'…that will make it easier to raise taxes and/or extend the retirement age once again so that once again we can declare it 'solvent' and start tacking other spending government benefits on to the program without having to say they will need to raise taxes to pay for those new benefits."

---

You get it, so many don't, they just repeat what others have said. It isn't going to "close" or become "insolvent." I doubt they even cut benefits. Like other government programs (most people get back all they paid in within 5 or 6 years), once you start it, very hard to stop it, if you want to get reelected.

YouBet said:

---

Isn't fiat with no budgeting or accountability great?

---

So much this. When do our genius leaders reexamine the nuts and bolts of the system and making adjustments to the overall program? Maybe our new purple haired friend could do a deep dive.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

Good point.

If we're to go that route, I'd add Space exploration, be it by NASA or government contracts, that needs to be cut off until all our people's needs are taken care of.

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

That's simply the date when more is taken out than paid in. It's not a meaningless date. And yes, the SS money has been used for general budget items for years.

The point here is that we've hit the iceberg and are dancing around on the deck. Everyone was focused on the additional spending in the omnibus CR yet this new spending on Social Security - passed last night - seems to have been ignored.

---

It's a completely meaningless date. The day before that date we will be funding X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund. On magic date +1 we will still be paying the same X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund.

---

No, for years, we've been paying for general fund items with money collected from social security. That's why the general fund owes money to SS. That date is when, because of less money being paid into SS versus being taken out now, the IOUs are "paid off".

My Dad told me 50 years ago to not expect to have SS when I became eligible. My entire financial/retirement planning has been based on that admonition.

I'll turn 70 next year and will begin taking SS because I have to. Those funds will be invested for my grandchildren.

That's great for them but a damn shame for the country. My dad's generation had a lot of folks who received guaranteed pension plans. There are a few folks of my generation who planned to not have SS. Means testing over the years would have helped somewhat to keep SS practical.

Not enough people paying into SS, more taking out plus the government raiding the plan to feed their spending hunger has destroyed SS.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

My Dad told me 50 years ago to not expect to have SS when I became eligible. My entire financial/retirement planning has been based on that admonition.

I'll turn 70 next year and will begin taking SS because I have to. Those funds will be invested for my grandchildren.

That's great for them but a damn shame for the country. My dad's generation had a lot of folks who received guaranteed pension plans. There are a few folks of my generation who planned to not have SS. Means testing over the years would have helped somewhat to keep SS practical.

Not enough people paying into SS, more taking out plus the government raiding the plan to feed their spending hunger has destroyed SS.

---

Unfortunately, very few really want to do anything to fix SS. We all know (or should know) it is an albatross, but nobody will fix it. I have no belief I'll get SS, and I'd gladly forego it completely/encourage a means testing if it helped to start right the ship. You can't get people to buy in to means testing (or any other potential fix) because "I paid in dammit i'm getting my money" (which is understandable, but still a hurdle to fixing the problem)

It will always be paid, either with the help of higher taxes, reduced benefit levels, or both. Those changes will be more severe because current politicians, including Trump, don't have the courage to make smaller changes now. So we steal from our children and grandchildren to live like fat cats now.

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

That's simply the date when more is taken out than paid in. It's not a meaningless date. And yes, the SS money has been used for general budget items for years.

The point here is that we've hit the iceberg and are dancing around on the deck. Everyone was focused on the additional spending in the omnibus CR yet this new spending on Social Security - passed last night - seems to have been ignored.

---

It's a completely meaningless date. The day before that date we will be funding X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund. On magic date +1 we will still be paying the same X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund.

---

No, for years, we've been paying for general fund items with money collected from social security. That's why the general fund owes money to SS. That date is when, because of less money being paid into SS versus being taken out now, the IOUs are "paid off".

---

And what difference does that make? Those surpluses were spent decades ago. The IOUs used to pay for the SS deficit are paid out of the general fund today. They will be paid out of the general fund on magic day plus 1.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Isn't fiat with no budgeting or accountability great?

---

So much this. When do our genius leaders reexamine the nuts and bolts of the system and making adjustments to the overall program? Maybe our new purple haired friend could do a deep dive.

---

Been there, done that. Raised the rates, raised the retirement age, removed the cap on Medicare earnings. Voters said: " okay we will pay in significantly more and increase the age significantly….if this is what it takes to make solvent in perpetuity." Then not many years later politicians of both parties started adding new benefits to the program and saying it wouldn't cost anything because it was coming out of social security fund. Many conservatives said….but, but, that will make it not solvent in perpetuity. Politicians said….not my problem just vote for me if you want more benefits. Some politicians said no… but MSM said they wanted to "cut" social security and the road went on forever and the party never ends. At least never ends until the government's ability to borrow ends.

I'll pass on repeating the cycle again.

Re: "Social Security Trust Funds were already estimated to be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2035, and the change will hasten the program's insolvency date by about half a year"

Guess who turns 65 in 2030.

Welp, at least I have been saving/investing since the early 90s.

Hopefully I will not be 6' under in 2030 else everyone else gets to enjoy the fruits of my (and my employers') labors.

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

That's simply the date when more is taken out than paid in. It's not a meaningless date. And yes, the SS money has been used for general budget items for years.

The point here is that we've hit the iceberg and are dancing around on the deck. Everyone was focused on the additional spending in the omnibus CR yet this new spending on Social Security - passed last night - seems to have been ignored.

---

It's a completely meaningless date. The day before that date we will be funding X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund. On magic date +1 we will still be paying the same X percent of social security benefits out of the general fund.

---

No, for years, we've been paying for general fund items with money collected from social security. That's why the general fund owes money to SS. That date is when, because of less money being paid into SS versus being taken out now, the IOUs are "paid off".

---

And what difference does that make. Those surpluses were spend decades ago. The IOUs are paid out of the general fund today. They will be paid out of the general fund on magic day plus 1.

---

I guess the point is, folks are always upset about SS spending, but that 2035 date is when SS officially runs out of money. It has paid it's way until that date.

The politicians robbed the SS money all these previous years to fund their bad spending habit.

At the end of the day, it's revenue minus expenses which has led to massive debt, yes, but it's not really the fault of SS.

The real difference is that SS's authority to draw funds without congressional appropriations will end in that date.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

I'd rather we spend $200B on old people in the USA than give $200B to Ukraine or Israel or whomever else we think needs our money more than we do.

---

If only we operated that way

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

SS should be illegal. Shut it all down.

---

Illegal, no.

Voluntary, absolutely.

Our "public servants" are a special class. Why am I taxed on 85 percent if my SS a/k,/,a "government benefit." Why are some people