infinity ag said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This is why people are convinced you cannot solve the Expense>Revenue problem without touching tax rates, healthcare, SS and defense.

---

You don't have to touch defense.

But entitlements HAVE to be dealt with.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest consume every dollar we take in via taxes.

We would have a $2 trillion surplus if we didn't have those 4 items.

---

I agree in theory but how will you just cut Grandma's SS when she needs it to survive? She's paid into it for 40 years. If it is just cut, it will drive so many old people onto the streets.

And why is it an "entitlement"? I was forced to pay into it by the Govt. Now I want my money back. Nothing more nothing less.

---

Social security taxes are a flat rate on wage/salary earnings up to a max. But social security benefits are paid in a way that very much is tilted to lower income recipients.

Social security calculates something they call your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME), which is a number based on your earnings history -- the highest 35 years of taxable wage earnings adjusted for inflation. This earnings history is the earnings you paid SS taxes on, up to whatever was that year's taxable max. (Earnings above the taxable max are not taxed and are irrelevant to the SS admin.) From AIME the SS admin calculates what they call your Primary Insurance Amount. Your monthly payment is based on this PIA. The calculation of PIA contain 'bendpoints' that are also indexed for inflation. In 2025, the formula for calculating your PIA is 90% of the first $1,226 of your AIME, then 32% of your AIME between $1226 and $7391, then 15% of your AIME above $7391. This PIA is what you would receive at full retirement age (67) in 2025. Earlier or later retirement reduces or increases your monthly SS payment relative to your PIA.

So, if you have a low earnings history, a low PIA, you receive 90% of your PIA. If you have a high earnings history, a higher PIA, you receive a smaller percentage of your PIA per month, depending on just how high is your PIA. This is intentionally redistributive. Those with lower lifetime wage earnings receive a much higher return on their flat rate social security taxes compared to those with higher lifetime wage earnings.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

I don't think the DOGE cuts will have any discernible effect on anything. It's almost entirely for optics and transparency.

---

Yes, and no. The amount of cuts are significant if you consider the fact that had those cuts not been made those expensive would've recurred on an annual basis. Have to start somewhere.

---

You absolutely have to start somewhere and I am all for getting rid of the waste and fraud but if we are going to even come close to balancing the budget, major reform is needed in Social Securty, Medicare and Medicaid which Trump and the Republicans (along with the Dems) have said aren't going to be touched.

---

They didn't say they would not be touched. They will be reduced by eliminating fraud.

Big difference than won't be touched.

---

The amount of actual fraud still doesn't solve the problem. The vast majority of payments are legitimate payments under the current law and it will get worse due to demographics. Per the Trump administration

"FACT: The Social Security Administration made an estimated $72 billion in improper payments between 2015 and 2022. ($10b per year)
FACT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated it made $140+ billion in improper payments in 2024 alone."

So if you could get rid of all of those payments, it is approx $150b a year. A lot of money but far from enough to come close to solving the deficit problem.

It will help but we need serious, permanent changes like materially higher retirement age, means testing, lower payments, etc.

---

1. Estimated
2. Estimated by the agencies handing it out

Let's wait until DOGE is done with them.

Jeeper79 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

I accept that both parties contributed to this mess.

But my vote went to the best candidate that I could vote for to do the exact opposite of what has occurred. It's not my fault that these candidates fail either by lack of power to change things themselves or because they were liars with no intent to change anything. There isn't anything else I can do except revolt and that would accomplish even less than continuing to hope the next guy I vote for can do something positive.

So, I do not accept your premise that I still bear blame for the egregious deficits our leaders have created over the decades. I wasn't even alive when most of this began, and I didn't vote for anyone that campaigned for greater deficit spending.

---

I generally agree with you. But if we don't demand more from our elected officials, this doesn't change. It's too late once they're in office. We need better nominees or to demand more from the nominees we've got.

I'm not expressly blaming you (or me), but saying you didn't have a hand in it is a very short step away from saying it's out of your hands or that you can't do anything about it.

---

I really don't understand this "demand more" line of thinking to bring change. Each person has 1 vote and gets to vote for 1 representative, 2 Senators, and 1 President. This seems like the equivalent of the old "wish in one hand…." figure of speech. I will go ahead and say it - this is definitely out of the hands of a single individual.

javajaws said:

---

0 impact. It will keep going up

---

Agreed, any savings to be spent elsewhere

American Hardwood said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

It could hit $40T before he leaves office.

---

It's Congress that created this mess. SS and Medicare have to be cut.

---

Its everyone that's created this mess.

---

No not everyone. I didn't. We don't all share the blame. Don't make excuses for the greedy thieves that set this up.

---

Everyone in the government from D to Rs for certain but also citizens spending their time putting the spotlight on social nonsense from gay marriage to shemale reading hour instead of things that impact us all like government spending. The democrats shouted squirrel and the Rs completely lost touch with meaningful issues effecting us all, our children and grand children


When the financial crap hits the fan nobody will give a crap about the social nonsense / distractions

rootube said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The feds take in over $3 Trillion a year in taxes, probably more.

We don't have a problem with money. We have a problem with politicians being incapable of not spending 2x what our income is. It can be done, and it doens't have to be done at the expense of you and me and telling us that we just need to nut up and pay more in taxes, wave goodbye to any semblance of the SS that was stolen from us, etc.

But, based on the comments on this thread for hte most part, seems that everybody is pretty much resigned to the fact that we will just fork over more and more of our income and that will somehow work.

---

Ok you pick. What do you want to gut. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, Income Security Programs, Veterans Benefits. After those spending categories they are pretty much irrelevant.

We just announced that we will be increasing defense spending so we are already digging the hole deeper.

---

Defense (and the Veterans) is the only stuff in your list that is actually Constitutional. All else should be cut with some spending reductions even for the military.

I might start to believe we have a chance if we can eliminate (or say reduce by 75%) the post office budget. Everyone hates the post office, knows it is super inefficient, yet it has increased head count while delivering a decreased volume of mail.

If we can't gut the Post Office, no way we will do anything harder. Other than the DOGE stuff, it is THE stupid easy target with all the alternative ways of delivering information available today. And starting to approach a dollar to deliver a letter.

BTW, Congress has the authority to create a post office, but it is not mandated to do so.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This is why people are convinced you cannot solve the Expense>Revenue problem without touching tax rates, healthcare, SS and defense.

---

You don't have to touch defense.

But entitlements HAVE to be dealt with.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest consume every dollar we take in via taxes.

We would have a $2 trillion surplus if we didn't have those 4 items.

---

I refuse to concede on those because I've been paying in for over 40 years and I now realize we are governed by children. I'd rather cut defense spending for a few years given our technological advantages. Our system and culture needs a reset. A very hard reset.

---

There it is.

"Got mine".

Jeeper79 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

It could hit $40T before he leaves office.

---

It's Congress that created this mess. SS and Medicare have to be cut.

---

Its everyone that's created this mess.

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

It could hit $40T before he leaves office.

---

It's Congress that created this mess. SS and Medicare have to be cut.

---

Its everyone that's created this mess.

---

---

Oh, you know what you did!!!!!1

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This is why people are convinced you cannot solve the Expense>Revenue problem without touching tax rates, healthcare, SS and defense.

---

You don't have to touch defense.

But entitlements HAVE to be dealt with.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest consume every dollar we take in via taxes.

We would have a $2 trillion surplus if we didn't have those 4 items.

---

I refuse to concede on those because I've been paying in for over 40 years and I now realize we are governed by children. I'd rather cut defense spending for a few years given our technological advantages. Our system and culture needs a reset. A very hard reset.

---

Defense spending is about $1 trillion per year, so even if you completely stopped spending on defense entirely you still have a $1 trillion shortfall. But you can't do that because you have to maintain a military, meaning pay for salaries, operations, maintenance, etc., which will be the vast majority of that $1 trillion, even if you spend nothing on new weapons systems or equipment.

That is the predicament we are in. Even if you shut the entire government down except for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments, we would not reduce the debt at all. All we would accomplish is not adding to the debt. And while that is not nothing, it's also not possible.

You can't begin to deal with the fiscal problems of this country until you deal with entitlements.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

This is why people are convinced you cannot solve the Expense>Revenue problem without touching tax rates, healthcare, SS and defense.

---

You don't have to touch defense.

But entitlements HAVE to be dealt with.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest consume every dollar we take in via taxes.

We would have a $2 trillion surplus if we didn't have those 4 items.

---

I refuse to concede on those because I've been paying in for over 40 years and I now realize we are governed by children. I'd rather cut defense spending for a few years given our technological advantages. Our system and culture needs a reset. A very hard reset.

---

Defense spending is about $1 trillion per year, so even if you completely stopped spending on defense entirely you still have a $1 trillion shortfall. But you can't do that because you have to maintain a military, meaning pay for salaries, operations, maintenance, etc., which will be the vast majority of that $1 trillion, even if you spend nothing on new weapons systems or equipment.

That is the predicament we are in. Even if you shut the entire government down except for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments, we would not reduce the debt at all. All we would accomplish is not adding to the debt. And while that is not nothing, it's also not possible.

You can't begin to deal with the fiscal problems of this country until you deal with entitlements.

---

Why is this so hard for people to come to grips with? The federal government was never meant to provide for people's basic needs.

Keep in mind MOST of the US Public Debt is held by the Federal Reserve.

Thank you Woodrow Wilson.
*************************
Well, no. MOST of the debt is not held by the Federal Reserve,

Total Debt: $36.219 Trillion
Debt Held by Govt Agencies and Trusts (think SS trust fund and etc.) $ 7.359 Trillion
Debt Held by the "Public" $28.859Trillion
Debt held by Federal Reserve Banks (a subset of "Public") $ 4.629 Trillion

Debt Held by Public minus Debt Held by FRBs $24.230 Trillion

Thomas Jefferson had a few things to say on issues related to some of those raised or mentioned in this thread.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve."

But also, "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

I've been rightfully and correctly doomsday on the debt for several years now. It's not going to get fixed so everyone should just figure out how they best mitigate this as much as possible if it implodes while you are alive.

There is no way out of this other than catastrophic implosion.

Tom Fox said:

---

rootube said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The feds take in over $3 Trillion a year in taxes, probably more.

We don't have a problem with money. We have a problem with politicians being incapable of not spending 2x what our income is. It can be done, and it doens't have to be done at the expense of you and me and telling us that we just need to nut up and pay more in taxes, wave goodbye to any semblance of the SS that was stolen from us, etc.

But, based on the comments on this thread for hte most part, seems that everybody is pretty much resigned to the fact that we will just fork over more and more of our income and that will somehow work.

---

Ok you pick. What do you want to gut. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, Income Security Programs, Veterans Benefits. After those spending categories they are pretty much irrelevant.

We just announced that we will be increasing defense spending so we are already digging the hole deeper.

---

There. I picked for you.

---

Sounds great. Now you just need to run for office on that platform, get elected and make it happen. Simple.

Medicaid was expanded in the COVID/post-COVID budgets.

But, now even Republicans are unwilling to reduce spending back to pre-COVID levels. Entitlements once granted are incredibly difficult to remove.

"We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations," the members said in the letter led by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.).

"Balancing the federal budget must not come at the expense of those who depend on these benefits for their health and economic security," the members said.

And these are Republicans!

****
The Social Security 'Fairness" Act was passed in January. I think it is incorrectly named, almost as badly as the Inflation Reduction Act. In any case, most Republicans supported that as well. It ends up draining the Trust Fund six months earlier.
**
"We" just can't stop spending money we don't have. We see the oncoming fiscal cliff and we step on the gas.

rootube said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

rootube said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The feds take in over $3 Trillion a year in taxes, probably more.

We don't have a problem with money. We have a problem with politicians being incapable of not spending 2x what our income is. It can be done, and it doens't have to be done at the expense of you and me and telling us that we just need to nut up and pay more in taxes, wave goodbye to any semblance of the SS that was stolen from us, etc.

But, based on the comments on this thread for hte most part, seems that everybody is pretty much resigned to the fact that we will just fork over more and more of our income and that will somehow work.

---

Ok you pick. What do you want to gut. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, Income Security Programs, Veterans Benefits. After those spending categories they are pretty much irrelevant.

We just announced that we will be increasing defense spending so we are already digging the hole deeper.

---

There. I picked for you.

---

Sounds great. Now you just need to run for office on that platform, get elected and make it happen. Simple.

---

Make suffrage based on being a net federal income tax payer and I can get it done ASAP.

Letting the leeches vote was a grave error. The founders knew better.

Wait till they start taxing 401K. almost 10 Trillion sitting around...

NM

agAngeldad said:

---

Wait till they start taxing 401K. almost 10 Trillion sitting around...

---

That's when the uprising will start.

Jack Boyette said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

It could hit $40T before he leaves office.

---

It's Congress that created this mess. SS and Medicare have to be cut.

---

Damn I'm 2 years away from finally getting some of that.

Half of americans are morons and don't know or care about the debt. Doge will do nothing to affect it. We are continuing the same spend rate in Trumps 1st 8 months. My guess is republicans will not be able to reduce spending.

Kozmozag said:

---

Half of americans are morons and don't know or care about the debt. Doge will do nothing to affect it. We are continuing the same spend rate in Trumps 1st 8 months. My guess is republicans will not be able to reduce spending.

---

Trump (the "leader" of the republican party) doesn't want to cut aggregate spending.

He wants to cut taxes and increase spending without touching entitlements. Additionally we are staring down the barrel of a self-inflicted deep recession where the calls for assistance from the federal government from individuals and businesses will only increase.

So no, republicans will not reduce spending.

DOGE is for entertainment purposes only. It doesn't matter how much Trump cuts. All that means to the next politician who gets in office is they have that much more to spend to make themselves look good at the expense of future stability.

The real value of DOGE is trying to make a culture shift. Get more people to open their eyes to how garbage their politicians are and hope it motivates them to vote them out.