What is going on with the Big Beautiful Bill?

[jmacvols1]

That’s just where the problems begin. Shrinking work force to recipients ratio isn’t sustainable either.

AI Overview

birth rates in the United States are at historic lows. The general fertility rate has declined to a new record low, with 54.4 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This rate is significantly below the 2.1 births per woman needed to maintain a stable population size. The number of births has also been declining, with a 2% decrease from 2022 to 2023.

 

[CobbVol]

Jeffries blowing it up… over three hours.

Unfortunately he can speak indefinitely before debate and voting can occur. He started just before 5am so hopefully he fades so they can move forward.

 

[volbound1700]

I am in a wait and see approach because 90% of what I read about it is loaded with misinformation one way or another

 

[McDad]

people want the gov't to cut spending..unless it effects their personal pocketbook


it's in the Constitution the gov't is to provide a defense to protect the citizens and this is really all the Fed gov't should be doing and there is enough money collected in taxes to pay for this with no shortfalls. Nothing in the Constitution about the gov't running socialized retirement/healthcare programs running massive deficits...for example a person works for 45 years makes an average of $40.000 per year will pay $26,100 in Medicare taxes......


AI Overview


A person earning $40,000 per year and working for 45 years would pay approximately
$26,100 in Medicare taxes over their career.
Here's the breakdown:

• Annual Medicare tax: The standard Medicare tax rate for employees is 1.45% of wages. On a $40,000 annual salary, this equates to $40,000 * 0.0145 = $580 per year.
• Total Medicare tax over 45 years: Over 45 years, the total Medicare tax paid by the employee would be approximately $580 * 45 = $26,100.

Upon turning 65 this person goes on Medicare then has an heart attack rushed to hospital in an ambulance, open heart surgery, stay in ICU, a lot of medication, assuming no complications, maybe some rehab spends far more than paid in taxes and why Medicare is in more trouble than SS. It does not have to be a heart attack but cancer and associated treatment. Just gall bladder removal surgery can cost eat up just about all this person paid in Medicare taxes...

AI Overview:
The cost of bladder removal surgery, also known as cystectomy, can vary significantly, but generally ranges from $19,000 to $32,000. Factors influencing the cost include the type of surgery (open vs. robotic), the specific hospital or facility, and the patient's overall health and complexity.

• Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to run out of money in 2034.
• If no action is taken, Social Security benefits may need to be reduced by nearly one-fourth in less than a decade.
• There are various proposed solutions to address Social Security's solvency issues, such as raising the payroll tax, adjusting benefit formulas, and increasing the retirement age

(of course SS has no true trust fund and there are no assets in the "trust fund" only gov't liabilities in the form of gov't bonds. If the gov't cashed those bonds out, AI Overview says "at the end of December 2024, the Social Security trust fund reserves are estimated to be about $2.7 trillion. This represents a slight decline from the peak of nearly $3 trillion in 2020"..which is not enough to keep SS solvent. And if the SSA has to cash these bonds out to pay a retiree a SS check, where does the money come from to cash out these bonds? Taxpayers, so the SS retiree is still living on the back of the taxpayer and the gov't is in essence double taxing the taxpayer. Where does the interest come from on these on gov't bonds in the SS so called trust fund? Taxpayers)

Yes sir. It is.

the question, we the citizenry, should be asking is "is the spending appropriate and related to the threat of attack on America". I don't think anyone can make a case it is.

Those who think as you do will have to give up your sacred cow (a cow mandated by the constitution to be sure) just as you ask others to give up their sacred cow. If we cannot do that as a country, you might as well give up the song and dance when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

 

[CobbVol]

I am in a wait and see approach because 90% of what I read about it is loaded with misinformation one way or another

For sure. Without this bill that involves basically Trumps agenda, what he campaigned on, and what he was elected to do would require separate bills, and in this Congress/environment that would not be effective.

 

[Vol since 77]

.....and?????

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

I want to cut EVERYONES sacred cows, on both sides of the aisle

 

[jmacvols1]

Yes sir. It is.

the question, we the citizenry, should be asking is "is the spending appropriate and related to the threat of attack on America". I don't think anyone can make a case it is.

Those who think as you do will have to give up your sacred cow (a cow mandated by the constitution to be sure) just as you ask others to give up their sacred cow. If we cannot do that as a country, you might as well give up the song and dance when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

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.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[walkenvol]

none are serious about the budget unless/until they start making cuts to entitlements starting with SS.

Any politician who proposes cuts to SS for the folks who have paid in 12.4% of their earnings throughout their working lives should immediately be run out of DC. Now the payments to folks who haven’t paid in (spousal benefit, disability benefit) should be cut from SS and if the government wants to continue paying them then move it under Medicaid or another “handout” charity type program.

The “withdraw more than you pay” argument is lame. Normally work pensions / 401K’s, etc allow you to take out more because the monies are invested and grow. SS was supposed to work that way but the spending addicted politicians couldn’t keep their hands out of that pot.

Without SS, our country will have an epidemic of homeless old folks.

 

[McDad]

I want to cut EVERYONES sacred cows, on both sides of the aisle

Me too.

Elon should call his 3rd party the "Skinny Cow" party instead of "The American" party.

 

[lawgator1]

For sure. Without this bill that involves basically Trumps agenda, what he campaigned on, and what he was elected to do would require separate bills, and in this Congress/environment that would not be effective.

So there are items within it that can only pass under the subterfuge of other parts ? Not much of an endorsement.

 

[McDad]

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.

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.

 

[jmacvols1]

Any politician who proposes cuts to SS for the folks who have paid in 12.4% of their earnings throughout their working lives should immediately be run out of DC. Now the payments to folks who haven’t paid in (spousal benefit, disability benefit) should be cut from SS and if the government wants to continue paying them then move it under Medicaid or another “handout” charity type program.

The “withdraw more than you pay” argument is lame. Normally work pensions / 401K’s, etc allow you to take out more because the monies are invested and grow. SS was supposed to work that way but the spending addicted politicians couldn’t keep their hands out of that pot.

Without SS, our country will have an epidemic of homeless old folks.

Typically real high earners who are self-employed with lots of employees they have to pay SS taxes on will end up paying more in SS taxes than what they receive in benefits. So self-eployed pay 12.2% but for most people not self-employeed pay a SS tax of 6,2% and, when figuring in bend points, will get far more in benefits than what they paid in SS taxes. Your average person who has now been retired for 20+ years has already received 3-4 times more in benefits than what they paid in taxes...they should NOT be complaining about anything. They are bankrupting the system, in real terms they are taking money away from future retirees. Because of deficits SS is running, some kid in the first grade today, when retires will end up having to have major cuts to their SS check, pay higher SS taxes, have increased retirement ages or a combination of these things. Why should future generations be punished?

SS is just a tax people pay and nothing more. Back in the 1930's the Dems did NOT set SS up as a savings plan where they saved SS taxes a person pays in and then give that money back when that person retires. They set it up like a Ponzi scheme where they spend all SS taxes every year, nothing is saved.

Everyone should know about Ida Mae Fuller. She got the first SS check. If we take the $22,888 she received in total benefits and subtract the $24 she paid in taxes we see SS was already in trouble with that first check she got. Ms. Fuller was just the first person not the only person to do this. For the first 30-40 years of SS existence those first retirees hit the jackpot in getting far more in SS benefits than what they paid in SS taxes. Also in these very early years there were few people retired compared to the number of people working so there was a surplus of SS taxes collected by the gov't. Did the Dems save those surplus SS taxes? No, spent it all. Obama said never let a crisis go to waste so in the 30's Dems used the Depression as a crisis (excuse) to implement a new tax, the SS tax, to create simply more revenue for the gov't to blow money on...paying people a SS check was just an afterthought..SS was all about creating a new tax..tax and spend....SS is just a tax nothing more....and now it's a mess....socialism never works.

AI OVERVIEW:
Ida May Fuller (September 6, 1874 – January 27, 1975) was a Vermont schoolteacher and legal secretary, most notable for being the first American to receive recurring monthly Social Security payments.

Social Security Milestone

• Contribution: Fuller worked under the Social Security program for just under three years (spring 1937–November 1939), paying a total of $24.75 in payroll taxes (equivalent to $510 in 2024).
• First Check: On November 4, 1939, while running errands in Rutland, Vermont, she visited the regional Social Security office to inquire about benefits. She later said, “It wasn’t that I expected anything, mind you, but I knew I’d been paying for something called Social Security and I wanted to ask the people in Rutland about it.” Her claim was processed, and on January 31, 1940, she received the first recurring Social Security check (check number 00-000-001) for $22.54 (equivalent to $506 in 2024).
• Lifetime Benefits: Fuller lived to 100, collecting $22,888.92 in benefits (equivalent to $513,723 in 2024) over 35 years, a significant return on her contributions.

 

[Persian Vol]

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

 

[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.

There are economist who will say where we are at right now is sustainable, it's the future trajectory of spending that is not sustainable.

The BBB has a cut in spending while designed to grow the economy. With spending cuts (and future recession bills to cut spending more) combined with growing the economy faster than the debt......grow out of debt.....will it work?

The Fed gov't should never got itself into medical care, retirement, education and all other non-constitutional spending we would not be where we are at now with the debt.

 

[BeardedVol]

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

It's the fruit of 40 years of seeding with conservative talk radio and Fox News, combined with underfunding public education.

 

[walkenvol]

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.

 

[McDad]

There are economist who will say where we are at right now is sustainable, it's the future trajectory of spending that is not sustainable.

The BBB has a cut in spending while designed to grow the economy. With spending cuts (and future recession bills to cut spending more) combined with growing the economy faster than the debt......grow out of debt.....will it work?

The Fed gov't should never got itself into medical care, retirement, education and all other non-constitutional spending we would not be where we are at now with the debt.

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?

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

 

[CobbVol]

So there are items within it that can only pass under the subterfuge of other parts ? Not much of an endorsement.

The bill is moving forward under reconciliation.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

You consider Social Security an entitlement?

It's an entitlement for lower earners due to progressive nature of benefits that delivers a ROI that exceeds a 10 year T. This higher return for lower earners is because higher earners will receive a ROI that is far lower and in many cases, negative....

 

[jmacvols1]

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 wealthy have no more obligation to pay more in taxes than anyone else....everyone must pull their own weight.

The CBO shows medicaid cut off to 1.4 million illegals and about 5 million able-bodied people who will not work. In the 90's Mr Newt forced Clinton into welfare work requirements and the BBB is based on similar work requirements. Medicaid for everyone else stays the same..

I live in a small rural town in a rural county and all the hospitals are already shut down a few years ago except for one. There is just one emergency room for all the county. What are Medicaid cuts going to do that hasn't already been done years ago? As far as I am concerned, Obamacare has done more damage to healthcare in this country than cutting off illegals and able-bodied people from medicaid will ever do.

People complain about the spending and deficits/debts gov't spending creates.....then cut spending starting with entitlements as SS/Medicare/medicaid to stop the deficits.

 

[McDad]

The bill is moving forward under reconciliation.

I cannot find any info on how Thomas Massie voted.

anybody know?

 

[jmacvols1]

It's an entitlement for lower earners due to progressive nature of benefits that delivers a ROI that exceeds a 10 year T. This higher return for lower earners is because higher earners will receive a ROI that is far lower and in many cases, negative....

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.

 

[CobbVol]

I cannot find any info on how Thomas Massie voted.

anybody know?

I think he voted yes to move the bill forward for debate and voting in the House.