What If Washington Tried Dave Ramsey’s “Debt Snowball” Plan?

[dmallord]

Congress is home again — not because the budget is balanced, but because they can’t agree on yet another temporary fix. Meanwhile, the national debt has blown past crisis levels with no coherent plan to stop it.

The latest budget proposal seems backward: it cuts healthcare funding, raises taxes on the middle class, and still manages to hand out new tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. If this were a household budget, Dave Ramsey would call it insanity — spending more while pretending it’s progress.

Maybe it’s time to treat the nation’s finances like the family finances Ramsey talks about: stop borrowing, live on a strict budget, and attack debt with discipline. His “debt snowball” approach — paying off the smallest debts first, then rolling that momentum into larger ones — builds accountability and results. Applied nationally, that might look like:

1. Cut the 'credit cards.' No new spending without identified funding. Every new program must pay for itself.
2. Set real priorities. Protect essentials — defense, Medicare, Social Security — but require every other program to justify its existence annually.
3. Start the snowball. Eliminate smaller, redundant agencies or subsidies first, then redirect those savings toward larger fiscal obligations and interest payments.
4. Sell unused assets. Federal properties, vehicles, and lands that drain resources should be liquidated to accelerate debt reduction.
5. No new gimmicks. Stop using temporary extensions and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of government.

This isn’t partisan — it’s arithmetic. The next step should be enforceable accountability: a balanced budget requirement with real penalties for overspending, mandatory debt reduction targets, and independent audits that track every dollar of savings. Until lawmakers feel the same financial pressure every American family does, the cycle of debt and delay will continue — and the interest bill will keep rising for generations to come.

 

[domroger]

Congress is home again — not because the budget is balanced, but because they can’t agree on yet another temporary fix. Meanwhile, the national debt has blown past crisis levels with no coherent plan to stop it.

The latest budget proposal seems backward: it cuts healthcare funding, raises taxes on the middle class, and still manages to hand out new tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. If this were a household budget, Dave Ramsey would call it insanity — spending more while pretending it’s progress.

Maybe it’s time to treat the nation’s finances like the family finances Ramsey talks about: stop borrowing, live on a strict budget, and attack debt with discipline. His “debt snowball” approach — paying off the smallest debts first, then rolling that momentum into larger ones — builds accountability and results. Applied nationally, that might look like:

1. Cut the 'credit cards.' No new spending without identified funding. Every new program must pay for itself.
2. Set real priorities. Protect essentials — defense, Medicare, Social Security — but require every other program to justify its existence annually.
3. Start the snowball. Eliminate smaller, redundant agencies or subsidies first, then redirect those savings toward larger fiscal obligations and interest payments.
4. Sell unused assets. Federal properties, vehicles, and lands that drain resources should be liquidated to accelerate debt reduction.
5. No new gimmicks. Stop using temporary extensions and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of government.

This isn’t partisan — it’s arithmetic. The next step should be enforceable accountability: a balanced budget requirement with real penalties for overspending, mandatory debt reduction targets, and independent audits that track every dollar of savings. Until lawmakers feel the same financial pressure every American family does, the cycle of debt and delay will continue — and the interest bill will keep rising for generations to come.

Totally agree.
But,and it is big but,there is no way that congress would enact this,regardless of who's in power.

 

[icanhelp1]

Congress is home again — not because the budget is balanced, but because they can’t agree on yet another temporary fix. Meanwhile, the national debt has blown past crisis levels with no coherent plan to stop it.

The latest budget proposal seems backward: it cuts healthcare funding, raises taxes on the middle class, and still manages to hand out new tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. If this were a household budget, Dave Ramsey would call it insanity — spending more while pretending it’s progress.

Maybe it’s time to treat the nation’s finances like the family finances Ramsey talks about: stop borrowing, live on a strict budget, and attack debt with discipline. His “debt snowball” approach — paying off the smallest debts first, then rolling that momentum into larger ones — builds accountability and results. Applied nationally, that might look like:

1. Cut the 'credit cards.' No new spending without identified funding. Every new program must pay for itself.
2. Set real priorities. Protect essentials — defense, Medicare, Social Security — but require every other program to justify its existence annually.
3. Start the snowball. Eliminate smaller, redundant agencies or subsidies first, then redirect those savings toward larger fiscal obligations and interest payments.
4. Sell unused assets. Federal properties, vehicles, and lands that drain resources should be liquidated to accelerate debt reduction.
5. No new gimmicks. Stop using temporary extensions and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of government.

This isn’t partisan — it’s arithmetic. The next step should be enforceable accountability: a balanced budget requirement with real penalties for overspending, mandatory debt reduction targets, and independent audits that track every dollar of savings. Until lawmakers feel the same financial pressure every American family does, the cycle of debt and delay will continue — and the interest bill will keep rising for generations to come.

Pie in the sky. DOGE was an attempt to identify wasteful spending and democrats went ballistic. Democrats don’t want to cut spending, they want increases. It’s Democrats that refuse to vote for a CR, Schumer wants an increase of 1.5 trillion dollars rolled into the next budgetary process. Democrats are all fluff and no stuff. Show me one program that Democrats want to shut down. ACA is a total fail but insist on doubling down on a failed healthcare program.

 

[Bn2f]

Pie in the sky. DOGE was an attempt to identify wasteful spending and democrats went ballistic. Democrats don’t want to cut spending, they want increases. It’s Democrats that refuse to vote for a CR, Schumer wants an increase of 1.5 trillion dollars rolled into the next budgetary process. Democrats are all fluff and no stuff.

Do you listen to yourself?
DOGE was an attempt at what?
It’s trump who wants an increase of the debt ceiling. Nay, he wants it gone.
Call your representative and tell them to pressure Thune and Johnson to get to working for the people.
Tick tock - Epstein looms and I’m hedging this will be the longest shutdown ever because YOU and YOUR treasonous party care to protect a pedo rather than the health and welfare of citizens.

 

[icanhelp1]

Do you listen to yourself?
DOGE was an attempt at what?
It’s trump who wants an increase of the debt ceiling. Nay, he wants it gone.
Call your representative and tell them to pressure Thune and Johnson to get to working for the people.
Tick tock - Epstein looms and I’m hedging this will be the longest shutdown ever because YOU and YOUR treasonous party care to protect a pedo rather than the health and welfare of citizens.

With the exception of Rand Paul every Republican senator voted to keep the government open. Since the senate requires 60 votes and there are only 53 Republican senators, if you do the math that means 7 democrats have to vote with republicans to keep the government running. Pretty simple stuff. The democrats own the shutdown.

Demanding a 1.5 trillion increased spending is a non starter. Need to cut waste fraud and abuse in the ACA and other programs. Democrats don’t like what that amounts to but Medicaid is not a catch all, needs to be returned to its original purpose and that is to provide medical care for the most needy, not illegals, not millions of parole migrants, and not for able people who refuse to get a job or attempt to look for a job or just plain refuse to adhere to the minimum requirements.

Increasing the debt ceiling doesn’t equate to increasing the debt.

 

[Bn2f]

With the exception of Rand Paul every Republican senator voted to keep the government open. Since the senate requires 60 votes and there are only 53 Republican senators, if you do the math that means 7 democrats have to vote with republicans to keep the government running. Pretty simple stuff. The democrats own the shutdown.

Demanding a 1.5 trillion increased spending is a non starter. Need to cut waste fraud and abuse in the ACA and other programs. Democrats don’t like what that amounts to but Medicaid is not a catch all, needs to be returned to its original purpose and that is to provide medical care for the most needy, not illegals, not millions of parole migrants, and not for able people who refuse to get a job or attempt to look for a job or just plain refuse to adhere to the minimum requirements.

Increasing the debt ceiling doesn’t equate to increasing the debt.

Repubs control all three branches. Thune could suspend the filibuster right now. The problem with you and the Republicans, other than being traitors, is you lack personal responsibility. Cutting potentially 11 million Americans off of healthcare is a non-starter. You are probably one of those 11 million with your handicap unemployed ass. It’s bat shit crazy to allow an eight time bankrupt fraud of a businessman any amount of leeway to spend. Don’t forget, you fucking idiot you, the House holds the power of the purse.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Republicans control the government so deficit spending will skyrocket. It’s what they do. Cut taxes and raise military spending to increase deficits.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not much better.

Setting priorities would be a great start.

Deficit Donnie’s only “plan” seems to be to debase the currency and pay interest on the ballooning debt with severely devalued dollars. Coincidentally, that’s how Banana Republics always deal with this problem.

 

[icanhelp1]

Repubs control all three branches.

The republican congressional majority control the house with a 1+ vote majority. They have the numbers to pass a bill without democrat assistance. That's real control!

Republicans control the chairs in the upper chamber ( senate) They can, as a majority, change the rules. With only 53 republican senators they need help from democrats. To opt out of the filibuster by using the nuclear option will only put the senate in the "Harry Reid zone" resulting in retaliation when republicans are in the minority. They cannot pass a CR without help from democrats.

By the way it's the dems filibustering.

Thune could suspend the filibuster right now.

The democrats could end the impasse by voting to continue funding the government and take up their cause during regular order. Democrats filibustering the CR because of healthcare contracts raising in prices is the equivalent to cutting off your finger over a hangnail...ludicrous and delusional rationalization. Schumer is pussy whipped by AOC.

The problem with you and the Republicans, other than being traitors, is you lack personal responsibility.

I'm not a traitor. Personal responsibility is non sequitur.

Cutting potentially 11 million Americans off of healthcare is a non-starter.

Cite where millions of qualified Americans will be cut off from healthcare, specifically Medicaid?

You are probably one of those 11 million with your handicap unemployed ass.

I'm retired and I earned my retirement.

It’s bat shit crazy to allow an eight time bankrupt fraud of a businessman any amount of leeway to spend.

TDS is not a political platform, it's an emotion. Solves nothing. We put up with auto pen for 4 years now it's your turn in the barrel.

Don’t forget, you fucking idiot you, the House holds the power of the purse.

Ad-Hon is so you, you're so emotional. Take your meds!

Yes the house holds the power of the purse, however, that authority is shared with the senate. Appropriation bills require both chambers to agree on taxing, spending, borrowing. They oversee and conduct checks and balances on the executive branch.

 

[icanhelp1]

Republicans control the government so deficit spending will skyrocket.

It's republicans that are trying to cut wasteful spending. Schumer, with his delusional mandate to add 1.5 trillion in additional spending is not a serious solution to deficit spending.

It’s what they do. Cut taxes and raise military spending to increase deficits.

Unfortunately the Democrats are not much better.

Setting priorities would be a great start.

The ball is in the democrats hands.

Deficit Donnie’s only “plan” seems to be to debase the currency and pay interest on the ballooning debt with severely devalued dollars. Coincidentally, that’s how Banana Republics always deal with this problem.

And yet the Biden Admin added 8.4 trillion to the national debt and that's after Covid ran its course. His spending caused a 10 point increase in inflation. Republicans during the Biden admin were no better.

Like usual you and your democrat posse lack self awareness.

 

[stxjimmy]

6 more months of tariffs bringing in the money and the sums involved will be sufficient to clear the debt. Not

 

[dmallord]

Our economy is a mess, Republicans demand less spending, yet the President, on a whim, is propping up his Argentinian look-alike with $20 billion and little concern about the fallout.

Why does he do that when we are in a Republican crisis at home?

 

[OralAllOver]

The US government is NOT like a family or business

We print our own money and nobody can evict/reposses nothing

And, unlike other countries, we borrow money in our own currency. Which means, if necessary, inflation/devaluation (if necessary) is our friend, not a death sentence

 

[dmallord]

With the exception of Rand Paul every Republican senator voted to keep the government open. Since the senate requires 60 votes and there are only 53 Republican senators, if you do the math that means 7 democrats have to vote with republicans to keep the government running. Pretty simple stuff. The democrats own the shutdown.

That's not what caused the shutdown of our government. The content of the CR and the untenable cuts to healthcare for millions of Americans are the root causes: that, and the recalcitrance of the majority party to act in a bipartisan funding agreement. By your own reasoning, it would only have taken seven Republicans to accept some changes to keep the government open. The fact that the Republican leadership would not negotiate on any points to overcome that hurdle is telling. [Rand Paul had intestinal fortitude.]

Healthcare was the driving force in the shutdown—simple math. 62% of Americans supported healthcare in 2024.

By political party: The partisan divide is significant:

• Democrats: 90% believe the government has a responsibility to ensure coverage.
• Independents: 65% hold the same belief.
• Republicans: 32% believe it is the government's responsibility, though this is an increase from 22% in 2020.

Had America had a direct vote on the matter, it would have passed legislation to fund healthcare by majority vote. Irony. The ruling party didn't act in its constituents' best interests.

Demanding a 1.5 trillion increased spending is a non starter. Need to cut waste fraud and abuse in the ACA and other programs. Democrats don’t like what that amounts to but Medicaid is not a catch all, needs to be returned to its original purpose and that is to provide medical care for the most needy, not illegals, not millions of parole migrants, and not for able people who refuse to get a job or attempt to look for a job or just plain refuse to adhere to the minimum requirements.

What's 1.5 trillion when the BB bill already has a $10 trillion new debt cost built in by Republicans? [ ] Kidding aside, I disagree with the fluff added to the Democrat proposals beyond our American healthcare effort.

The CR is a temporary stopgap measure to compensate for the Republicans' misjudgment of the cost of a new budget. It will require more work soon to keep things afloat. The big, beautiful bill, Republican leadership acknowledges, is flawed, deeply so. Hastily thrown together, voted on with minutes to read it by anyone, it was jammed through both houses and signed by the president. It was the work of a party in chaos, jockeying for leadership positions rather than working together to build a budget. Now, the flaws are cracking through, and we are where we are.

Republicans are getting ridiculed by their base voters despite their best efforts to blame Democrats for it just as you are attempting to. Unfortunately for Republicans, the honeymoon effect is waning, and Americans are demanding they grow up and act responsibly.

You malign Democrats for using the filibuster procedures. It's a tool both parties have had access to since its creation. It can be changed. Given the current toxic atmosphere, the nuclear option could do that. If Republicans were brave enough, they could change the Senate's interpretation of its own rules with a simple majority vote (51 votes, or 50 plus the Vice President). This method has been used before to eliminate the filibuster for presidential nominations. It is not without pitfalls.

 

[OralAllOver]

It's republicans that are trying to cut wasteful spending. Schumer, with his delusional mandate to add 1.5 trillion in additional spending is not a serious solution to deficit spending.

The ball is in the democrats hands.

And yet the Biden Admin added 8.4 trillion to the national debt and that's after Covid ran its course. His spending caused a 10 point increase in inflation. Republicans during the Biden admin were no better.

Like usual you and your democrat posse lack self awareness.

Cut wasteful spending?


His first term, Drama Monkey cut taxes big time for uber wealthy. This time EVEN BIGGER cuts paid, in part, by placing health care obstacles in path of working poor (as Jesus would do)

FoxNews harkens back to glory day of the 50s or 60s. CHECK OUT TAX BRACKETS THEN not to mention minimal deductions and no subsidies

We live in an oligarchy, people!

 

[Lazaran]

Dave Ramsey is a grifting clown; full stop.

Have you ever listened to his show???



I listened to a lot of his shows and just had to laugh.

It’s ALL people with first world problems - and many (most) times, upper middle class white people with first world problems.



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Our economy is a mess, Republicans demand less spending, yet the President, on a whim, is propping up his Argentinian look-alike with $20 billion and little concern about the fallout.

Why does he do that when we are in a Republican crisis at home?

Because Treasury Secretary Bessent’s ex-boyfriend heavily invested in Argentina and good old Steve is bailing his pal out.

 

[dmallord]

Pie in the sky. DOGE was an attempt to identify wasteful spending and democrats went ballistic. Democrats don’t want to cut spending, they want increases. It’s Democrats that refuse to vote for a CR, Schumer wants an increase of 1.5 trillion dollars rolled into the next budgetary process. Democrats are all fluff and no stuff. Show me one program that Democrats want to shut down. ACA is a total fail but insist on doubling down on a failed healthcare program.

"In a letter to Elon Musk as the leader of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), an initiative of the second Trump administration tasked with reducing federal spending, Senator Elizabeth Warren offered ideas quite different from the Republican approaches discussed thus far. She listed 30 specific cuts that would be supported by congressional Democrats and would satisfy the 2 trillion dollar goal of cuts announced at the start of the Trump administration."

Source: Democratic supported budget cuts.

DOGE was a wrecking ball approach to cut waste. It was a bad way to swing a hammer at the wall without consideration of the impact on the neighborhood. If it had been thought out, presented to Congress as recommendations, and then acted upon, it would have had better results. As it was, it lost ground, mired itself in court battles, and was widely ridiculed in public for bad faith decisions by a drug-taking billionaire and a mob of nineteen-year-olds with no experience in budgets. It galvanized public opinion against such cuts.

 

[dmallord]

Dave Ramsey is a grifting clown; full stop.

Have you ever listened to his show???



I listened to a lot of his shows and just had to laugh.

It’s ALL people with first world problems - and many (most) times, upper middle class white people with first world problems.



We. Told. Them. So.

I sometimes caught his radio show while traveling between job sites. Caught bits and pieces of it. Then read a couple of his books. I applied some of his principles, not all. I wasn't a true believer in being debt-free. I used his earlier principles of 'leveraging other people's money' to build a modest number of single-family homes to rent out. Of course, it helped that I ran a full-time business before that. But I did okay in life.

Ramsey failed at real estate —[trumplike] at twenty-six — and had an epiphany. He turned simple principles of saving and spending wisely into a marketing empire after that. His methods have impacted millions and have helped them get out of debt.

Like Trump, he created a "University" that is very successful, no promises like Trump, but it hasn't been sued either.

Say what you will, smile over his mannerisms, the man lives by his principles and models charitable Christian living.

Does it matter that those he helped included upper-middle-class white people? His courses are open to anyone, so if people don't listen to him, that's not his fault.

EDIT: I am not a member of his group, nor ever enrolled in his classes, nor am I compensated by anyone in his organization. I believe his goals and methods work. So I mention them when people ask me how I got started and did so well in life... well, up to now, and that's due to health, not money issues!

 

[Lazaran]

I sometimes caught his radio show while traveling between job sites. Caught bits and pieces of it. Then read a couple of his books. I applied some of his principles, not all. I wasn't a true believer in being debt-free. I used his earlier principles of 'leveraging other people's money' to build a modest number of single-family homes to rent out. Of course, it helped that I ran a full-time business before that. But I did okay in life.

Ramsey failed at real estate —[trumplike] at twenty-six — and had an epiphany. He turned simple principles of saving and spending wisely into a marketing empire after that. His methods have impacted millions and have helped them get out of debt.

Like Trump, he created a "University" that is very successful, no promises like Trump, but it hasn't been sued either.

Say what you will, smile over his mannerisms, the man lives by his principles and models charitable Christian living.

Does it matter that those he helped included upper-middle-class white people? His courses are open to anyone, so if people don't listen to him, that's not his fault.

EDIT: I am not a member of his group, nor ever enrolled in his classes, nor am I compensated by anyone in his organization. I believe his goals and methods work. So I mention them when people ask me how I got started and did so well in life... well, up to now, and that's due to health, not money issues!

Welp, I happened upon “grifting Dave” on the radio as I was making my regular commute to work, and I had the unfortunate opportunity to get a real feel for what that scamming POS was all about.

I challenge you to listen to a large sample of his shows and then tell me I’m wrong.

Dave Ramsey is basically a mega- church televangelist who enriched himself off the gullibility of rubes.

Sure, someone like you or myself could employ some of Dave’s "principles", but that has NEVER been a problem for someone like you or myself, and Dave sure as hell didn’t “invent the wheel” in his “area of expertise”.

Just sayin'…

 

[dmallord]

Now, back to the scope of this thread. Anyone with suggestions on how to reshape or pare specific cuts or changes that would benefit the budget?

 

[dmallord]

Welp, I happened upon “grifting Dave” on the radio as I was making my regular commute to work, and I had the unfortunate opportunity to get a real feel for what that scamming POS was all about.

He has many critics of his methods and numbers. I don't expect everyone to give him the grift license Trump has. He didn't cheat anyone out of money at golf, construction, or building his talk shows. If they were, shouldn't there be some evidence of court cases?

I'm not following the grift angle. Who has he taken advantage of in business?

I challenge you to listen to a large sample of his shows and then tell me I’m wrong.

I mentioned I listened to some of his show when I was younger. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to do that today. My available time is far less than the desire to hear people call in a shout, "I'm debt-free!"

It's health issues that govern what I do and am not capable of doing these days.

Dave Ramsey is basically a mega- church televangelist who enriched himself off the gullibility of rubes.

Yes, the first is true. He also became a multi-millionaire via, programs, book selling, speaking engagements, etc. Where they gullible rubes? I don't know. Do you know someone who got taken by him?

Sure, someone like you or myself could employ some of Dave’s "principles", but that has NEVER been a problem for someone like you or myself, and Dave sure as hell didn’t “invent the wheel” in his “area of expertise”.

Just sayin'…

Truth that!

Ramsey once remarked, "Winning at money is 80% behavior and 20% head knowledge". This implies that financial success isn't about having secret or new information, but rather about controlling your own habits and actions.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Now, back to the scope of this thread. Anyone with suggestions on how to reshape or pare specific cuts or changes that would benefit the budget?

The biggest budget items would be pretty easy to cut, actually.

Military spending budget is $2.32 trillion this year, which is excessive by any measure. Start by reducing it 5% a year instead of increasing it every year.

Healthcare is a gigantic budget issue ($1.9 trillion), obviously. We can cut overall healthcare spending in the US by 50% if we adopt a system based on any of the developed nations in Europe or Asia.

Social Security is another gigantic item. Elimination of the Social Security payroll tax cap would fully fund the program far into the future.

Letting the Trump tax cuts expire as they were intended to would have had a significant positive impact on the deficit. Opportunity squandered.

 

[dmallord]

The biggest budget items would be pretty easy to cut, actually.

Military spending budget is $2.32 trillion this year, which is excessive by any measure. Start by reducing it 5% a year instead of increasing it every year.

5% is $116B. That's an impressive savings. Spread out over all military contracts not related to payroll, housing, and healthcare is a reasonable approach. It would impact the businesses they award contracts to, but that's belt-tightening that shouldn't kill off an associated industry.

Healthcare is a gigantic budget issue ($1.9 trillion), obviously. We can cut overall healthcare spending in the US by 50% if we adopt a system based on any of the developed nations in Europe or Asia.

That's a solution that would require more than Republicans can handle in the current budget. I agree we need a new system—one that makes healthcare a priority, not a brush-off. If the majority of your country is now classified as obese, that's not a good sign. It should be tied to childcare as well. If your income is such that you would spend more to take care of kids than you would earn, that's a bad sign too.

Social Security is another gigantic item. Elimination of the Social Security payroll tax cap would fully fund the program far into the future.

CHTgpt says:
Reasonable solutions for addressing Social Security's funding issues involve a combination of increasing revenue and adjusting benefits. No single solution is likely to be sufficient. The most frequently discussed options include raising or eliminating the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes, increasing the payroll tax rate, raising the full retirement age, and adjusting the benefit formula. A bipartisan approach combining multiple measures is generally considered the most realistic path forward.

Increasing revenue

• Raise or eliminate the earnings cap: This is one of the most impactful and popular proposals, especially among those who prefer to raise revenue rather than cut benefits. In 2025, the Social Security payroll tax was capped at the first $176,100 of income. Eliminating this cap would significantly increase the program's income, with some estimates suggesting it could close over half of the long-term funding gap.
• Increase the payroll tax rate: The Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for both employees and employers. Gradually increasing this rate by a small amount could significantly reduce the funding shortfall. For example, raising the rate by one percentage point over 10 years could close 26% of the 75-year funding gap.
• Broaden the tax base: Other sources of revenue could be tapped. Options include taxing investment income, subjecting employer-sponsored health insurance premiums to the payroll tax, or expanding coverage to all newly hired state and local government employees.

Adjusting benefits [I've lined out those I find not amenable to me.]

• Raise the full retirement age (FRA): As life expectancy has increased, some propose raising the FRA beyond its current level of 67 for those born in 1960 or later. This would reduce lifetime benefits, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that raising the FRA to 69 could cut the funding gap by about 24% over 75 years. However, this disproportionately affects individuals in physically demanding jobs.
• Reduce benefits for higher earners: A means test could be implemented to reduce or phase out benefits for retirees with significant other income or assets. Alternatively, the benefit formula could be adjusted to reduce payouts for the highest earners.
• Change the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA): The formula used to calculate annual COLAs could be altered. Some proposals suggest using a different inflation index, such as the Chained Consumer Price Index (C-CPI-U), which typically grows more slowly.

Combined approaches
Many policy experts suggest that a combination of these changes will be necessary to fully address the solvency issue. A bipartisan solution is generally seen as the most feasible path forward. Implementing changes sooner would allow for more gradual and less drastic adjustments, lessening the impact on current and near-term retirees.

Letting the Trump tax cuts expire as they were intended to would have had a significant positive impact on the deficit. Opportunity squandered.

Billionaires first, you're saying? Which ones are those?

 

[MajorRewrite]

I'm not familiar with this. Care to elaborate?

Only earnings below a cap are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Raising or eliminating the cap would generate more revenue for Social Security without impacting 80% of Americans.

Here’s an analysis of the impact of changing the cap from the Congressional Budget Office.

Interestingly, the CBO has a long list of detailed options for reducing the deficit.

 

[dmallord]

Only earnings below a cap are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Raising or eliminating the cap would generate more revenue for Social Security without impacting 80% of Americans.

Here’s an analysis of the impact of changing the cap from the Congressional Budget Office.

Interestingly, the CBO has a long list of detailed options for reducing the deficit.

As you were typing this, I edited the original comment and inserted a CHTgpt item in post #23. Thank you for this as well.

Getting this to the forefront of our elected officials would be challenging. It would take a true grassroots effort. Perhaps one that could swell during the next mid-term elections. But certainly a push on the current legislators could also help.