Happy birthday, Social Security. Unless Congress acts, full benefits end in 7 years.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a proclamation celebrating the 90th anniversary of Social Security on Thursday, though he offered no plans for avoiding insolvency and a steep drop-off in benefits within the next decade.

Trump, who campaigned on “saving” the income stabilization program for America’s seniors, said during an appearance in the Oval Office that Republicans would keep the program going.

But neither Trump, nor Republican leaders in Congress, have advanced legislation that would avoid a decrease in Social Security benefits in 2033, or begun to seriously address the issue.

“In the campaign I made a sacred pledge to our seniors that I would always protect Social Security and under this administration we’re keeping that promise and strengthening Social Security for generations to come,” Trump said. “You keep hearing stories that in six years, seven years, Social Security will be gone. And it will be if the Democrats ever get involved because they don’t know what they’re doing.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/08/14/repub/happy-birthday-social-security-unless-congress-acts-full-benefits-end-in-7-years/

[Tree Lady]

1. Yes they sent out a super sweet sickening

Email yesterday letting everyone know how import SS is and how they are protecting it and saving it.

Made me gag...especially knowing his people will lap it up as gospel.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Yes I received the same e-mail

[SWBTATTReg]

3. Here we go again, w/ the doom and gloom on SS. There's had to be at least 10-20 headlines on SS over the last

month or so at least.

[Silent Type]

4. Remember when Obama tried to do something about looming deficit? He was crucified, even by Democrats. Both parties

should be cited for waiting until the last minute to do something. Now, we have to hope Democrats regain control.

This projected Social Security deficit should have been handled long ago, it has been in every trustee's report for decades.

[Turbineguy]

5. I just got a very nice letter from them.

President trump is very concerned about the future funding of Social Security.

And please forget about all that Epstein stuff.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. When Reagan signed IRAs into law

I was asked where this was headed and said Republicans intend to end SS. I began a backup plan, and it will be no frills, but truly I never expected to see a dime, so anything's a bonus.

[Deminpenn]

7. Please stop posting that social security will

be insolvent.

There is NO social security government savings account that pays social sec benefits.

Social security is a pay as you go program. Currently social security takes in more money than it pays out in benefits. That extra income, by law, must be invested in US Treasury bills. When social security starts paying out more benefits than it takes in social security taxes, it will cash in those Treasury bill assets, then if needed, the difference between benefits and soc sec taxes paid will be paid from general tax revenue.

It is possible benefits may be cut due to Congress'
"Pay (as you) Go" budget rule; it won't be because soc sec is "bankrupt".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. Neither the word "insolvent" or "bankrupt" is used in the article

[Deminpenn]

9. "avoiding insolvency"

is a direct quote from the OP.

[Kaleva]

10. From the article

“The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote in a post published Thursday that “solutions are needed soon to prevent insolvency and the statutorily required benefit cut.”

Without a new law to address the financial struggles facing the program, CRFB wrote, a “typical couple retiring just after insolvency will face an $18,400 cut in annual benefits.”“

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/08/14/repub/happy-birthday-social-security-unless-congress-acts-full-benefits-end-in-7-years/

[Karma13612]

11. Although I do care about the

Benefit for all future retirees, not just those who are currently retired, I do want to clarify one thing from this part of the article:

Without a new law to address the financial struggles facing the program, CRFB wrote, a “typical couple retiring just after insolvency will face an $18,400 cut in annual benefits.”“

Does this mean that those of us already collecting will be safe from the cuts? Notice how they said “ typical couple retiring just after insolvency” .

And shame on the Washington State Standard article author for not being clear. This is shoddy journalism. If there has been a distinction made between those retired and those not yet retired, it behooves them to report it.
If they cut a single cent of my benefits that I’ve been collecting since I retired at 65 in 2019, I’m royally fcked.

[Kaleva]

12. I took it to mean future retires but I could wrong