What is going on with the Big Beautiful Bill?

[jmacvols1]

I cannot find any info on how Thomas Massie voted.

anybody know?

I think Massie ended up voting yes last night. just one Republcan no vote that being Fitspatrick Bucks County PA

 

[jmacvols1]

Sir. You aren't wrong. But the issue of spending is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is also not about what is, or is not, constitutional. Every thought validating your point of view is exactly what it feels like to the other side. They are "right" in their thinking.

The issue is about sustainability. It starts with admitting what we are doing now isn't working. We all got in this together. We will all have to sacrifice together. The military is like any other government spending item. It is bloated, inefficient, wasteful, and politically corrupt. Ask anyone who posts here who has experience in the services.

Let's put their cows AND your cows on a reasonable diet. For the good of the farm.

military spending would be at the top of my list of importance.

 

[CobbVol]

You aren't being realistic. Who cares what economists say? If it was an exact science, they wouldn't disagree. You're accepting politicians talking about future projections. Those never turn out to be accurate.

The BBB has spending cuts. Very happy to hear it. Simple follow up question, is the total spending in the BBB creating a deficit?

Yes, the BBB is creating a deficit. The BBB is trying to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. Question, in this Congress and political environment what are/were your expectations?

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

not just lower earners...I ran the numbers thru AI..... even a single person averaging 70K year while working will get more in benefits than paid in SS taxes:


from grok:
To determine whether a single person earning an average of $70,000 per year will receive more in Social Security benefits than they pay in Social Security taxes, we need to estimate both the taxes paid and the benefits received over their lifetime. This analysis involves several assumptions about earnings, work history, retirement age, life expectancy, and Social Security rules. Below, I’ll break it down step-by-step based on available data and reasonable assumptions, while critically examining the establishment narrative around Social Security.

Step 1: Social Security Taxes Paid

Social Security taxes are levied on earnings up to a taxable maximum, which is $176,100 in 2025. Since the person earns $70,000 per year, all of their income is subject to Social Security taxes.
Tax Rate: For a non-self-employed individual, the Social Security tax rate is 6.2% (the employer also pays 6.2%, making a total of 12.4%, but we’ll focus on the employee’s contribution unless considering the full tax for fairness).

Annual Tax:

$70,000 × 0.062 = $4,340 per year in Social Security taxes paid by the employee.

Work History:

Assume the person works for 35 years, as Social Security benefits are calculated based on the highest 35 years of indexed earnings. If they earn $70,000 annually (in real terms, adjusted for wage inflation), their total contribution is:

$4,340 × 35 = $151,900 in Social Security taxes paid by the employee.

If we consider the full 12.4% tax (employee + employer), the total paid is:

$70,000 × 0.124 = $8,680 per year

$8,680 × 35 = $303,800 over 35 years.

Note: The employer’s contribution is often viewed as part of the economic cost borne by the employee (e.g., through lower wages), so including it may be more realistic. However, for a direct comparison of “what the person pays,” the employee’s 6.2% is often used. I’ll calculate both scenarios.

Step 2: Social Security Benefits Received

Social Security benefits depend on lifetime earnings, the age at which benefits are claimed, and life expectancy. The benefit is calculated based on the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) and the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), derived from the 35 highest-earning years, indexed for wage inflation.

Estimating AIME and PIA

For simplicity, assume the person earns $70,000 annually (in 2025 dollars) for 35 years, and their earnings are indexed to reflect wage growth over time. The Social Security Administration (SSA) uses a formula with “bend points” to calculate the PIA. For 2025, the bend points are approximately (based on SSA projections):

90% of AIME up to $1,177/month

32% of AIME from $1,177 to $7,099/month

15% of AIME above $7,099/month

Assuming $70,000 is close to the average wage (the SSA’s 2023 average wage was $66,100), we can estimate the AIME. If earnings are constant in real terms, the AIME is roughly:

$70,000 ÷ 12 = $5,833/month (unindexed)

However, indexing adjusts past earnings to reflect wage growth. For a rough estimate, if $70,000 is near the average wage, the AIME for someone retiring in 2025 after 35 years at this level is typically around $5,000–$6,000/month, depending on indexing. Let’s assume an AIME of $5,833 (unadjusted for simplicity, as precise indexing requires historical wage data).

Using 2025 bend points (approximated):

First bend point: $1,177 × 0.90 = $1,059.30

Second bend point: ($5,833 − $1,177) × 0.32 = $4,656 × 0.32 = $1,489.92

Total PIA = $1,059.30 + $1,489.92 = $2,549.22/month

This PIA (Primary Insurance Amount which is benefits received at full retirement age) corresponds to the benefit at Full Retirement Age (FRA), which is 67 for people born after 1960.

Annual Benefit

$2,549.22 × 12 = $30,590.64/year at FRA.

Adjustments for Claiming Age
Benefits vary based on when they’re claimed:

Age 62: Benefits are reduced by about 30% for claiming 5 years early:
$2,549.22 × 0.70 = $1,784.45/month or $21,413.40/year.

Age 70: Benefits increase by 8% per year for delaying past FRA (3 years):

$2,549.22 × 1.24 = $3,161.03/month or $37,932.36/year.


Lifetime Benefits

Lifetime benefits depend on life expectancy. The average life expectancy for a 67-year-old in 2025 is about 83 years for men and 85 for women (based on SSA actuarial tables). Assume an average of 84 years (17 years of benefits from age 67).
Claim at 62: 22 years of benefits (to age 84):

$21,413.40 × 22 = $471,094.80

Claim at 67: 17 years of benefits:

$30,590.64 × 17 = $520,040.88

Claim at 70: 14 years of benefits:

$37,932.36 × 14 = $531,053.04

Step 3: Comparing Taxes Paid to Benefits Received

Now, compare the taxes paid to the benefits received:

Employee Contribution Only ($151,900)

Claim at 62: $471,094.80 > $151,900 → Benefits exceed taxes.

Claim at 67: $520,040.88 > $151,900 → Benefits exceed taxes.

Claim at 70: $531,053.04 > $151,900 → Benefits exceed taxes.

Employee + Employer Contribution ($303,800)

Claim at 62: $471,094.80 > $303,800 → Benefits exceed taxes.

Claim at 67: $520,040.88 > $303,800 → Benefits exceed taxes.

Claim at 70: $531,053.04 > $303,800 → Benefits exceed taxes.

In all scenarios, the lifetime benefits exceed the taxes paid, whether considering only the employee’s contribution or both employee and employer contributions.

Program Solvency:
The SSA projects that the trust fund may be depleted by 2035 unless reforms are made. If benefits are reduced (e.g., by 20–25%), the lifetime benefits could drop significantly, potentially falling below taxes paid.

Life Expectancy: Longer life increases benefits; shorter life reduces them.

Life Expectancy:
Longer life increases benefits; shorter life reduces them.

Final Answer

For a single person earning $70,000 per year (not self-employed) over 35 years, their lifetime Social Security benefits are likely to exceed the Social Security taxes they pay (whether considering only the employee’s 6.2% contribution of ~$151,900 or the full 12.4% contribution of ~$303,800), assuming they live to an average life expectancy (age 84) and claim benefits at ages 62, 67, or 70. Estimated benefits range from ~$471,000 to ~$531,000, depending on claiming age.

However, this conclusion is sensitive to:

Taxation of benefits, which could reduce net benefits by 10–20% if other income is high.

Time value of money, which reduces the present value of future benefits.

Future program changes, which may reduce benefits if Social Security’s trust fund faces insolvency.

At 70k, total benefits do exceed total contributions (Might want to reread that). With that being said, the ROI is very tiny (less than 2%)

From your example, you and your employer pay 303K for 35-40 years. You are estimated to get 471K until you die. Age 62 example.

 

[jmacvols1]

If your employer is withholding half of your 12.2% and giving it directly to the government, how is that any different than putting it all in your paycheck then you pass it along to the IRS? It’s not.

Pulling an example from the start of SS in 1939 isn’t relevant to today’s participants 91 years later IMO.

Managing SS is the easiest government program I know of. Eliminate all benefits for anyone who didn’t pay in the required 10 years. If the fund continues to run short, continue raising the earnings cap or eliminate it altogether along with raising the FRA age as was done in the early 80’s to keep the program solvent.

If in the 1930's the Dems had set up SS as a savings plan where they actually saved people's tax 'contributions' maybe even invested those contributions getting just a 1% return, SS would be flush with cash today. Instead they set it up as a Ponzi scheme spending all SS taxes every year those taxes were paid...spending SS taxes on things that have nothing to do with SS. That's why I say SS is just a tax you pay, nothing more than a tax that gets spent each year you pay it in...none of it is saved.

 

[McDad]

Yes, the BBB is creating a deficit. The BBB is trying to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. Question, in this Congress and political environment what are/were your expectations?

That's an interesting question for me to answer. Because I have expectations and wants about DC politics. And the expectations and wants are polar opposites.

What I expected is what we got. Another bad, grotesquely large, 1,000+ page bill that overspends relative to tax revenue. In essence we got the same stuff as we do under any other president. The chairs are rearranged, the decorations were changed, we increased / decreased money spent on different stuff...but the ship continues to sink.

What I want is fiscal responsibility. Less debt. Less spending. A simplified tax system. A smaller government. Bills that are simple and limited in scope and pages. What I want is for politics to take a back seat to what is best for America. And yes, I know I will never live to see my "want" realized.

 

[McDad]

military spending would be at the top of my list of importance.

You sound exactly like the other team when I suggest their sacred cows need a diet.

How much do we need to spend for our military for you to feel secure?

 

[jmacvols1]

At 70k, total benefits do exceed total contributions (Might want to reread that). With that being said, the ROI is very tiny (less than 2%)

From your example, you and your employer pay 303K for 35-40 years. You are estimated to get 471K until you die. Age 62 example.

what AI gave as "Final Answer":

Final Answer

For a single person earning $70,000 per year (not self-employed) over 35 years, their lifetime Social Security benefits are likely to exceed the Social Security taxes they pay (whether considering only the employee’s 6.2% contribution of ~$151,900 or the full 12.4% contribution of ~$303,800), assuming they live to an average life expectancy (age 84) and claim benefits at ages 62, 67, or 70. Estimated benefits range from ~$471,000 to ~$531,000, depending on claiming age.

AI also pointed out:
"In all scenarios, the lifetime benefits exceed the taxes paid, whether considering only the employee’s contribution or both employee and employer contributions."

----------------

if everyone got back more in benefits than paid in taxes, even got back just 2% more in benefits than paid in taxes, the system goes bankrupt.

----------------

If you are not self-employed you pay only 6.2% tax. Your employer pays 6.2% tax on you, an expense to your employer nothing more. Employers paying SS taxes on employees is just another form of wealth redistribution as minimum wage requirments. The 6.2% you pay and the 6.2% your employers pays on you all goes into the general tax fund and gets spent on whatever Congress wants to spend it on. Most gets spent on SS but some gets spent on items unrelated to SS.

 

[jmacvols1]

You sound exactly like the other team when I suggest their sacred cows need a diet.

How much do we need to spend for our military for you to feel secure?

enough to repel any attacks.

 

[McDad]

Thomas Massie is a big disappointment. Unfortunately, I think he is turning into Rand Paul...talks a good game but doesn't walk with the same convictions.

 

[McDad]

enough to repel any attacks.

Undefined. Interpretive. Remember, we are trying to decide what to spend per year which is defined and not open to interpretation.

So, what's the number?

 

[jmacvols1]

Undefined. Interpretive. Remember, we are trying to decide what to spend per year which is defined and not open to interpretation.

So, what's the number?

I have no military knowledge or expertise in what it would cost to repel all attacks against the US. If it cost 500 billion a year then I am for spending 500 billion a year.

 

[C-south]

How leadership convinced poor rural voters that cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy, while slashing Medicaid to partially offset the lost revenue, and still adding to the deficit—is somehow in their best interest is nothing short of extraordinary

The doom and gloom never ends up being as bad as some predict, if at all. Also things that were happening anyway will be labeled as a false result. That said if dems ditched the identity politics and wiggled a little on abortion they might be taken somewhat seriously but that’s all they know.

 

[McDad]

I have no military knowledge or expertise in what it would cost to repel all attacks against the US. If it cost 500 billion a year then I am for spending 500 billion a year.

May I try a different way?

America was never more invested and under legitimate worldwide threat as we were during ww2. Should that be our level of spending today? More? Less?

 

[jmacvols1]

May I try a different way?

America was never more invested and under legitimate worldwide threat as we were during ww2. Should that be our level of spending today? More? Less?

Again, I have no idea how much it takes to repel attacks today. In the 1940's they had no jets, no ICBMs, no missiles traveling at mach speeds that can cross oceans in minutes. I'm for spending enough to repeal any attacks against the US.

 

[McDad]

Again, I have no idea how much it takes to repel attacks today. In the 1940's they had no jets, no ICBMs, no missiles traveling at mach speeds that can cross oceans in minutes. I'm for spending enough to repeal any attacks against the US.

Try to remember this exact moment when you point out the splinter in the D's eye regarding their spending items. They also have no idea how much things cost and what is involved but they are adamant their programs make people more secure.

The reality for America's budget is this. Until enough of us can marginalize those who think like you and Luther (on the other side), there will be no balanced budget, reduced deficits, and no reduction in debt. And since that marginalization is unlikely, our shared desire to see fiscal responsibility will not happen.

@BigOrangeMojo How's my cynicism looking today?

 

[C-south]

Try to remember this exact moment when you point out the splinter in the D's eye regarding their spending items. They also have no idea how much things cost and what is involved but they are adamant their programs make people more secure.

The reality for America's budget is this. Until enough of us can marginalize those who think like you and Luther (on the other side), there will be no balanced budget, reduced deficits, and no reduction in debt. And since that marginalization is unlikely, our shared desire to see fiscal responsibility will not happen.

@BigOrangeMojo How's my cynicism looking today?

 

[hog88]

.....and?????

Let's not forget the military. All the sacred cows have bloated together. They must diet together. It is the only way.

Absolutely! I'm all for gutting that bloated cow.

 

[jmacvols1]

Try to remember this exact moment when you point out the splinter in the D's eye regarding their spending items. They also have no idea how much things cost and what is involved but they are adamant their programs make people more secure.

The reality for America's budget is this. Until enough of us can marginalize those who think like you and Luther (on the other side), there will be no balanced budget, reduced deficits, and no reduction in debt. And since that marginalization is unlikely, our shared desire to see fiscal responsibility will not happen.

@BigOrangeMojo How's my cynicism looking today?

I will remember this moment as the moment where you are willing to sacrifice America's safety against enemies/terrorists for a balanced budget. I am for balanced budgets but not at the expense of safety. I am for cutting expenses in non-Consititutional budget items to provide sufficient money for defense while maintaining a balanced budget.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

You sound exactly like the other team when I suggest their sacred cows need a diet.

How much do we need to spend for our military for you to feel secure?

We gave ICE a bigger budget than many countries entire defense budget.

 

[C-south]

We gave ICE a bigger budget than many countries entire defense budget.

Because someone allowed us to be invaded by tens of millions of invaders.

 

[hog88]

I don't know much about the military other than technological advances change how wars are now fought. A world war today or in the future will be fought completely different from the wars of WW1 or WW2. Drones, missiles traveling at mach speeds, lasers etc are todays weapons and cost a lot of money. Does the US need an iron dome like Israel? Maybe. Star wars defense systems? maybe.... depending on how future weaponry technology evolves. If the Fed gov't just ran the military and nothing else, there is more than enough taxes to pay for it with no deficits. It's all the non-consititutional stuff the gov't is involved in that is creating deficits.

There is plenty of bloat in the military that could be cut, IMO you could cut military spending and make it a more deadly and effective force.

 

[hog88]

How leadership convinced poor rural voters that cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy, while slashing Medicaid to partially offset the lost revenue, and still adding to the deficit—is somehow in their best interest is nothing short of extraordinary

I have yet to see how taxes are being cut disproportionately for the wealthy. Wanna show us the math on that?

 

[jmacvols1]

There is plenty of bloat in the military that could be cut, IMO you could cut military spending and make it a more deadly and effective force.

That would be fine.

My point is if it cost "X" to defend the US against attacks, would you be willing to spend "X"?

If spending "X" creates a deficit would you be willing to cut other non-Consititutional discretionary spending to provide "X" amount for the military to defend the country thereby maintaining a balanced budget?

 

[hog88]

That would be fine.

My point is if it cost "X" to defend the US against attacks, would you be willing to spend "X"?

If spending "X" creates a deficit would you be willing to cut other non-Consititutional discretionary spending to provide "X" amount for the military to defend the country thereby maintaining a balanced budget?

Yes, I think we need to spend money on defense. The money we spend should be spent smarter for a more lean and deadly military and not the jobs program it has become.

When thinking of defense spending every congressman should remember one thing, the militarys purpose is to kill people and break shizz. Proposed spending that doesn't push toward that purpose is waste.