Three U.S. ex-presidents denounce the current one in a two-week stretch

[radiochaser]

On 6/1/2025 at 11:51 PM, RocketDog said:

Casting large groups of people into a single simplistic category has the advantage of being mentally unchallenging and entirely precludes the need for structured judgment and discernment. A lazy mind is a happy mind.☺️

 

Well done. You earned 2 Lazada Coins. 

 

Personally I find mammals repulsive. Aquatic life is tolerable if it stays under the water. Avians just clutter the skies and deserve to be sucked into jet engines.

 

What say you Ted?

 

You mean like democrats saying (in an email to me)

 

Republicans are a bunch of overgrown schoolyard bullies.

Our constituents shouldn’t have to suffer because Republicans want to act like children. This pettiness needs to end. I was there ready to ask questions on nuclear non-proliferation and US support for our democratic allies in Europe.

 

 

Or this from January 2023.   Didn't happen did it?  Note the "terrorists" claim.  Who let potential terrorist's into the U.S. unvetted?

 

MAGA Republicans in the U.S. House are planning a US government shutdown to force President Biden to destroy essential programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, public schools, college loans, and climate jobs.

President Biden will not give in to these MAGA terrorist demands, so the United States will default on its bonds, triggering an economic meltdown.

• Stock markets will collapse, wiping out pension funds, 501ks, and IRAs.

• Interest rates will soar, canceling investments in construction and manufacturing.

• The U.S. government will be unable to pay the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

• State and local governments will be unable to pay police, teachers, firefighters, hospitals, etc.

Before long, the U.S. will be in a Depression.

[gamb00ler]

17 hours ago, JimGant said:

I think you've lost the gist of this discussion. Perhaps it's time to go back to Canada. 

Welll..... a deafening silence on your analysis

 

Here's the gist that you have apparently lost:

TedG incorrectly stated:

1) that the SS trust funds started to decline in 2010.

2) the Feds are borrowing from themsleves(sic).

3) When the Special T bills are redeemed, the taxpayer has to pay again, or the federal government borrows money to pay back the Department of SS, which adds to the debt and deficit, another expense to the taxpayer

4) Or the money is borrowed by the feds, which adds to the debt and deficit, another expense to the taxpayer.

5) Since 2010, it has been running a cash-flow deficit.

 

TedG is correct in the sense that the FICA taxes alone do not cover the benefits paid since 2010.  He chooses to ignore the interest income the trust funds earn which until 2021 was sufficient to cover the shortfall in FICA collection.  The shortfall in FICA income is very widely known and I never disputed it.

 

TedG continually states that taxpayers have already paid extra costs because they are dinged for the interest on the special SS Treasury bills purchased by the SS trust fund.  He doesn't understand they would have been charged the same interest if any other lender/investor had purchased the Treasury bills required to cover the national debt.

 

So I disagree.... I have not lost any gist.  TedG has and now I'm thinking you may have also.

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Since 2010, it has been running a cash-flow deficit.

That's the key to this whole argument. That the SS trust fund has been amassing Treasury IOU credits via interest IOUs -- is a nice accounting gesture -- making payouts between 2010 and 2021 seem like a non event, as the trust fund actually increased in value. Why? Well, SS had to make up for the cash deficit, ie, cash benefit payouts exceeding cash pay ins -- by finally cashing in those Treasury IOUs for real, touchy feely, payable to beneficiaties -- cash!  But incoming interest IOUs exceeded this amount -- until 2021.

 

And the result was -- that the Treasury had to raid the general tax fund, or sell more bonds to China for real cash, to obtain that cash to pay for those SS Trust fund cashed-in IOUs. And the result was an increase in the Federal deficit.

 

But, holy smoke -- that huge SS trust fund, even reduced by cashed in IOUs -- earned more interest IOUs than the IOUs necessarily cashed in. This between 2010 and 2021. So, it looked like the SS trust fund was solvent up until 2021. And this is what you mistakenly maintain. You've been hoodwinked by an accounting mechanism. Any MBA knows cash flow accounting, not financial accounting, is how you look at reality.

 

Anyway, way too much time wasted on this. A Google search of "ss cash deficit" will give better explanations than I can.

 

And, I alluded to your Canadian connection. Any meaningful comparisons of US SS with the Canadian equivalent? That might be enlightening.

Cheers.

[TedG]

23 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

@JimGant @TedG, you guys really need to break this SSA <-> Treasury thing down to its components and remove the emotion from your analysis.

 

If SSA was a private company selling inflation adjusted annuities via monthly premiums to a group of US customers and it invested the accumulating capital in Treasury bills/bonds.... what would you say about that practice?  What would be the impact on US taxpayers?

SSA is not a private company.   SSA is a government agency.   All debt is a libality to the tax payer. 

[TedG]

23 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I never posted anything that disagrees with your above statement.  I do however completely disagree with your notion that because the SS lends funds to the Treasury that the taxpayers are paying extra.

 

The tax payers are paying extra.  Where does the money come from to repay the loan? 

[TedG]

On 6/3/2025 at 7:29 AM, gamb00ler said:

I never said anything that disagrees with your take.  I believe that the SS trust funds were mandated from the beginning to ONLY invest in Treasury bills.  I don't think that practice began in 2010. 

 

Which means the federal government has looted the trust fund since day one. 

[TedG]

On 6/3/2025 at 6:34 AM, JimGant said:

 

Indeed. The whole SS program is a cash flow entity -- pay-as-you-go with collected cash; any surplus cash is loaned to the Treasury to buy aircraft carriers, in exchange for an IOU; money from taxes collected on SS benefits paid also go to the Treasury, in exchange for an IOU. And interest on this whole conglomeration in the Trust fund is credited annually to the Trust fund -- solely as IOUs. 

 

This whole thing is an accounting entity. Thus, with IOUs from interest, the Trust fund has a positive balance that says the Fund was solvent until 2021. But it's IOUs -- NOT cash -- that allowed for this accounting picture. Thus, the Fund went broke in 2010, when cash out exceeded cash in. Simple. So, don't let the accounting slight-of-hand lead you astray: IOUs are not the same as cash. 

 

Actually, we could discard the whole Trust Fund concept -- again, it's only an accounting gimmick, so we can see the comparison of cash taxes collected against cash benefit payouts. Why not just have SS as a line item on the annual Congressional budget -- to be covered, like all the other line items, with general tax collections. Then, if there's an overrun in outlays -- like what usually happens with most line items in a Congressional budget -- eat the overrun, like you'd do with F-35s -- and then just add that to all the others, in the annual budget overrun figure (and kick the can down the road, like we always have -- why make SS any different from any other "must pay" govt programs....?)

 

I agree.  But, there are some people fail to understand the money flows.  

[ThreeCardMonte]

On 6/3/2025 at 9:42 PM, gamb00ler said:

 

Wha??????

As I said before... your reading comprehension is abysmal.  You somehow can't parse my very simple and short sentence to arrive at its obvious meaning.  Maybe you should take a looooong vacation.

Another Stanford man?

 

@Tug classmate?

 

 

[JimGant]

On 6/4/2025 at 6:35 PM, TedG said:

I agree.  But, there are some people fail to understand the money flows.  

Here's a well-written explanation that maybe gambooler can understand.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5364519-social-security-trust-fund-debt/

[gamb00ler]

4 hours ago, JimGant said:

Here's a well-written explanation that maybe gambooler can understand.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5364519-social-security-trust-fund-debt/

You have completely misunderstood what I have said in previous posts.  I agree 100% with what is in the first half of the article from TheHill.   The portion of TheHill article that begins with "And then here’s the dirty little secret" makes an error that far too many people make.  It conflates two issues that are completely unrelated.  The two issues are a) the national debt and b) the impending shortfall in SS funding of benefits from 2033 onward.  That essay in TheHill appeared in the Opinion section and bears the typical disclaimer attached to opinion pieces.  I see that the author is Merrill Matthews a member of the very right leaning Federalist Society.  It's not surprising that he uses the 'dirty little secret' phrase to add spice to his fact challenged attack on a cherished component of the American safety net.

 

Here's the historical year end balance reported for the SS OSDI trust fund for years '57 - '24:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

 

Should I point out in what year the reported annual balance begins to decline?

 

Since 2010 there has been a shortfall between the total benefit expenditure and the total intake from FICA and SS taxes.  Up until 2021 that shortfall was covered by the interest paid by the Treasury on the special bills held by the SS trust funds.  The above linked SS web page clearly indicates what is happening with the trust funds.

 

Appendix A:

The relationship between the US national debt and the SS trust funds is identical to the relationship between the Treasury and all other investors in US T bills.  Of course the Treasury sells new T-bills to pay off the old maturing T bills..... it can't work any other way.

 

Mr. Matthews is just trying to gin up anger to be used for political gain.  Well... at least he did get the facts in the first half correct.

 

Loosely related but interesting details:

https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt/

 

[JimGant]

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Should I point out in what year the reported annual balance begins to decline?

No, better to point out the year that cash flow out exceeded cash flow in. And that "dirty little secret" would be 2010. And because the country was in deficit, the Treasury had to borrow from the public the cash to make up for that cash flow shortfall. Thus, 2010's deficit increases accordingly. So too deficits in years afterwards. And, of course in accumulation -- the national debt. 

 

Yes, the books show that the SS Trust fund actually increased 'til 2021, since total interest IOU's accumulated during those years actually totaled more than the interest IOU's cashed in to the Treasury to pay for the cash flow shortfall. But since 2010, and every year hence, the Treasury has had to add to the national debt -- by selling Treasuries to the public to pay back those SS IOU's. Now, with interest IOU's no longer able to cover cash flow shortfalls -- IOU's of principal are having to be redeemed by the Treasury -- and this accounting number will be depleted in 2032 -- or earlier.

 

But forgetting the accounting slight of hand being played here, just concentrate on the cash, since 2010, that the Treasury had to borrow from the public each and every year -- and will be legally obligated to borrow until the Trust Fund runs out in 2032, or abouts. (I say legally obligated because those IOU's are legal obligations.) But, what if Congress says post 2032 -- hey, we've been providing for the cash flow shortfalls since 2010. Why not just continue paying out those cash shortfalls for the public good (i.e., not having benefits reduced) -- since the Trust Fund is just an accounting gimmick.....

 

Anyway, something like that will surely happen -- and maybe the Trust Fund will go away and copy Social Security's SSI payments, which are strictly a line item from general revenue. 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

No, better to point out the year that cash flow out exceeded cash flow in. And that "dirty little secret" would be 2010. And because the country was in deficit, the Treasury had to borrow from the public the cash to make up for that cash flow shortfall. Thus, 2010's deficit increases accordingly. So too deficits in years afterwards. And, of course in accumulation -- the national debt. 

 

complete bunk.  do you not include interest in the value of your IRA,401(k),SEP's?

In 2010 the government would borrow exactly the same amount if it had to repay some Chinese investor instead of paying interest to the SS trust fund.  The SS trust fund then judiciously decided to use that interest to pay benefits owed. 

 

I really can't believe you're so easily misled about this.

 

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

But since 2010, and every year hence, the Treasury has had to add to the national debt -- by selling Treasuries to the public to pay back those SS IOU's. Now, with interest IOU's no longer able to cover cash flow shortfalls -- IOU's of principal are having to be redeemed by the Treasury -- and this accounting number will be depleted in 2032 -- or earlier.

 

and some more bunk.  The Treasury borrows what it needs to service the national debt and the current fiscal year's deficit.  It would borrow that same amount regardless of what the SS trust fund does with its capital.   Therefor the national debt and the interest it accrues does not change when the SS trust fund buys a T-bill. The national debt is a continuing debt completely separate from SS funds.  As T-bills mature, the capital plus interest is sent to the buyer of the T-bill and then a new T-bill is created and sold to replace the maturing issues.  The national debt remains the same after the transition to the newly issued T-bills.

 

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

 

 

Can you not understand that a loan from the SS fund is identical to a loan from any and all other T-bill purchasers?  Like most investors with a maturing T-bill, the SS will keep its money safely invested by purchasing a new T-bill.  The SS funds are invested in a revolving loan to be used by the Treasury to cover the revolving national debt.  

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

But forgetting the accounting slight of hand being played here

You're just being paranoid.  There is no slight of hand.  The dealings between the Treasury and the SS trust funds only differ in how the Treasury repays the T-bills principal plus interest.  Instead of two cash transactions needed for the Treasury to repay the lender (SS trust fund) and then for the lender to purchase a new T-bill.... the Treasury just sends out the benefit payments via cheques and deposits, the total of which is then deducted from the amount owed to the SS trust fund.  Other than that repayment method the dealings between Treasury and SS trust funds represent completely normal transactions between borrower and lender.

[ThreeCardMonte]

15 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

complete bunk.  do you not include interest in the value of your IRA,401(k),SEP's?

In 2010 the government would borrow exactly the same amount if it had to repay some Chinese investor instead of paying interest to the SS trust fund.  The SS trust fund then judiciously decided to use that interest to pay benefits owed. 

 

I really can't believe you're so easily misled about this.

 

and some more bunk.  The Treasury borrows what it needs to service the national debt and the current fiscal year's deficit.  It would borrow that same amount regardless of what the SS trust fund does with its capital.   Therefor the national debt and the interest it accrues does not change when the SS trust fund buys a T-bill. The national debt is a continuing debt completely separate from SS funds.  As T-bills mature, the capital plus interest is sent to the buyer of the T-bill and then a new T-bill is created and sold to replace the maturing issues.  The national debt remains the same after the transition to the newly issued T-bills.

 

 

Can you not understand that a loan from the SS fund is identical to a loan from any and all other T-bill purchasers?  Like most investors with a maturing T-bill, the SS will keep its money safely invested by purchasing a new T-bill.  The SS funds are invested in a revolving loan to be used by the Treasury to cover the revolving national debt.  

You're just being paranoid.  There is no slight of hand.  The dealings between the Treasury and the SS trust funds only differ in how the Treasury repays the T-bills principal plus interest.  Instead of two cash transactions needed for the Treasury to repay the lender (SS trust fund) and then for the lender to purchase a new T-bill.... the Treasury just sends out the benefit payments via cheques and deposits, the total of which is then deducted from the amount owed to the SS trust fund.  Other than that repayment method the dealings between Treasury and SS trust funds represent completely normal transactions between borrower and lender.

Anytime I have a problem falling asleep all I have to do is attempt to read your long winded posts that says nothing.

 

I’ll be out in a flash.

[CallumWK]

4 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Anytime I have a problem falling asleep all I have to do is attempt to read your long winded posts that says nothing.

 

I’ll be out in a flash.

 

We all understand you have issues with comprehending anything that contains more than 10 words. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

 

We all understand you have issues with comprehending anything that contains more than 10 words. 

I’m asleep within your first 5 words.  

[JimGant]

37 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

complete bunk.  do you not include interest in the value of your IRA,401(k),SEP's?

So what? We're talking cash flow; that this year's interest, represented by IOU's, increased the value of the Trust Fund is just fine and dandy for accounting purposes. But, come 2010, the Treasury finally had to trade some Trust Fund IOU's for hard cash, to make up for the short fall in benefit cash payout. And the Treasury, since it was negative on taxpayer inputs, had to borrow from the public for this cash to pay to the Trust Fund. Thus, an increase in the deficit in 2010 -- unless you believe IOU's for annual interest are the same as hard cash.....

 

46 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The Treasury borrows what it needs to service the national debt and the current fiscal year's deficit.  It would borrow that same amount regardless of what the SS trust fund does with its capital. 

Nope. It had to borrow more in 2010 -- and more ever since, because the Trust Fund had to cash in some IOU's to get hard cash to cover the cash flow deficit. And the Treasury had to come up with that cash.  Had things been as before 2010, when the Trust Fund traded its excess cash to the Treasury for IOU's -- well, in this case, the Treasury has to borrow less from the public, because of that cash infusion from Social Security. 

 

Now, if the Trust Fund was invested in gold, a Sovereign Fund, or in a mattress -- yeah, the Treasury would "borrow that same amount regardless of what the SS trust fund does with its capital." But, that's a whole different scenario from what we're talking here.

 

56 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Like most investors with a maturing T-bill, the SS will keep its money safely invested by purchasing a new T-bill.  The SS funds are invested in a revolving loan to be used by the Treasury to cover the revolving national debt. 

Huh? IOU's don't mature. They, post 2010, just finally get exchanged back into the hard cash originally loaned to the Treasury. 

 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

the Treasury just sends out the benefit payments via cheques and deposits, the total of which is then deducted from the amount owed to the SS trust fund. 

'Til 2032, no more owed to the SS trust fund. The accounting gimmick has expired, now what boss? Oh, just keep paying the shortfall; we'll just add it as another line item short of funding. 

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

But, come 2010, the Treasury finally had to trade some Trust Fund IOU's for hard cash

Where does this notion come from?  How do you propose that the Treasury conducts such a trade?  The Treasury doesn't hold any Trust Fund T-bills.  The SS trust funds hold those special T-bills.  If you're implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold..... that's completely illogical.

 

The amount of T-bills sold is dependent on the current Federal deficit.  The T-bills held by the SS trust funds are indeed helping finance the Federal deficit.  But, if SSA didn't buy those special T-bills the Treasury would just sell an equivalent amount of regular T-bills to a different investor.   The amount of interest paid on the national debt would be identical regardless if SS trust funds bought any T-bills.

 

The amount of T-bills sold is ALWAYS determined by the Federal budget and SSA's activity as a T-bill buyer has ZERO effect on that amount.  As I describe below.. SSA is NOT a part of the Federal budget since 1990.

 

The Treasury has been handing cash to the Trust fund for decades as payment for interest.  The cash that the Treasury handed over for 2010 through 2021 was ALL due to interest payable.    As far as the Treasury is concerned it matters not wether SS trust funds consider that cash to be interest or capital. 

 

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

Nope. It had to borrow more in 2010 -- and more ever since, because the Trust Fund had to cash in some IOU's to get hard cash to cover the cash flow deficit.

100% incorrect.  The SS trust funds are completely isolated from the Federal budget.  Every facet of the SSA is completely separate from interaction with the Treasury... except in a very typical lender/borrower relationship.  That's why there has not been a single $ (in cash or any other asset class) paid by the Treasury to support SSA.  The SSA/Federal budget got mostly divorced in 1986 and completely divorced by 1990. 

 

If there were anything but a lender/borrower relationship, a line item in the Federal budget would have to show the allocation of non-FICA  tax dollars to the SSA.  That hasn't happened except in unusual circumstances such as when the Feds gave taxpayers a break on FICA taxes for a year or two.  When that happened the Feds compensated the SSA trust funds for that taxbreak so that OASI balances were not affected.

 

From :

https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

 

So, by 1986, Social Security was technically off-budget, but it was still being used in the deficit calculations. Absent other legislative change, this would have continued until 1993. However, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law.

 

[DezLez]

3 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

I’m asleep within your first 5 words.  

I am surprised that your attention span before posting your mindless responses is that long!

[gamb00ler]

On 6/4/2025 at 4:22 PM, JimGant said:

And, I alluded to your Canadian connection. Any meaningful comparisons of US SS with the Canadian equivalent? That might be enlightening.

The Canadian version (Canada Pension Plan, CPP) is much less generous than US SS, but of course that is because the 'premiums' are much less.  When I first moved to US from Canada, I was still working for the same Canadian IT consulting firm.  In that situation, I was given the choice of contributing to CPP or SS.  Being financially unsophisticated at the time, I chose the cheaper plan... LOL.  Canada also has an additional small senior's benefit (Old Age Supplement,OAS) that is not based on taxed earnings, instead it is based solely on citizenship, age and length of residence in Canada.

 

The combined benefits may be sufficient for basic needs, but I am not well informed as I haven't lived in Canada for 40 years.  For those seniors with very low income and CPP, the OAS will be augmented substantially.  My family remaining in Canada all had solid educations and careers so they had good incomes and substantial pensions.  I have a poor understanding of the quality of life that Canadians with lower income and pensions can achieve.

 

The Wiki for CPP seems to be comprehensive and accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#:~:text=This system is a hybrid,contributions from rising any further.

 

Here's info about how the CPP is funded and the investments managed:

https://www.cppinvestments.com/faqs/

 

 

[JimGant]

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Where does this notion come from?  How do you propose that the Treasury conducts such a trade?  The Treasury doesn't hold any Trust Fund T-bills.  The SS trust funds hold those special T-bills.  If you're implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold..... that's completely illogical

I think you've gone completely off track. Of course the SS trust fund holds those special T-bills, or IOU's. But when, since 2010, the SS trust fund finally had a negative cash flow, and needed to convert some of those IOU's to hard cash -- it went to the Treasury with the number of IOU's needed for said cash. And, yes, the IOU's from 2010 to 2021 represented net interest earned on the principal (only after 2021 did the IOU's start dipping into principal). But that makes no difference in the argument, except it kept Trust fund principal above water -- for accounting purposes -- until 2021. So all the uninformed believed the Trust fund was above water until 2021, never knowing negative cash flow has required -- since 2010 -- the Treasury to pay out billions in cash to SS beneficiaries. And to legally have to do so until the gimmick Trust fund runs out of principal in 2032, or whenever. 

 

And am I "implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold" -- of course I am! How else can the Treasury get the hard cash to pay off the Trust fund IOU's -- other than by selling T-bills to Joe Blow or Ahha Wong -- since there haven't been any positive tax collections in decades. And will all these annual payouts for cashed in IOU's increase annual deficits? Yep, dollar for dollar.

 

So, the Trust fund is, indeed, a "dirty little secret." So, SS payouts, since 2010 -- and until the Trust fund runs out -- have required the public to buy T-bills. That the Trust fund remains solvent until 2032 -- only means the Treasury is legally required to redeem the Trust fund's IOU's for hard cash. And thus equivalently, increase national debt. Why we try to represent the Trust fund as something it is not -- is beyond my reasoning.

 

Anyway, I had hoped my reference article on the "dirty little secret" would finally open your eyes. That you dismissed it as a presentation by a political hack -- says more about you than him.

 

We're on different frequencies. Probably time to retire. 

[JimGant]

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Here's info about how the CPP is funded and the investments managed:

Thank you. Love our northern cousins, having worked in a US-located NORAD command post for four years, where it was one/third Canadian. The CF-101 squadron at Comox, on Vancouver Island, had the world's best, and rowdiest parties. A quick flight from our HQ at McChord AFB in Washington. 

[gamb00ler]

57 minutes ago, JimGant said:

And am I "implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold" -- of course I am! How else can the Treasury get the hard cash to pay off the Trust fund IOU's -- other than by selling T-bills to Joe Blow or Ahha Wong -- since there haven't been any positive tax collections in decades. And will all these annual payouts for cashed in IOU's increase annual deficits? Yep, dollar for dollar.

 

Nope... still wrong.  Instead of the SS trust funds buying a few T-bills, the Treasury did have to sell the same amount in T-bills to another investor.  That's the only thing that changed when the SS intake did not fully pay the SS benefits.  In other words, the Treasury still borrowed the exact same amount of money they would have borrowed but it now was borrowed from non-governmental borrowers.

 

The amount of money the Treasury raises through T-bill sales is solely determined by how much interest they pay on the national debt, how much deficit between expenditures and tax intake in the current fiscal year and investor sentiment.  The balance between intragovernment purchases of T-bills and outside purchasers does change, but the total of T-bills sold matches the amount the Treasury determined with no attention paid to SSA's needs.  THERE IS ZERO flow of funds from the Federal budget to SSA, except the special circumstances I described in a previous post.  There can't be any flow..... because the SSA plays NO role in the Federal budget per the 1990 change in law.

 

If you work through a concrete example, you'll see where you've made your mistake.

 

Another link with related content:

https://seniorsleague.org/the-law-that-would-prohibit-payment-of-your-full-social-security-benefits/

 

[gamb00ler]

34 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Thank you. Love our northern cousins, having worked in a US-located NORAD command post for four years, where it was one/third Canadian. The CF-101 squadron at Comox, on Vancouver Island, had the world's best, and rowdiest parties. A quick flight from our HQ at McChord AFB in Washington. 

Canadians get a lot of opportunity to perfect their partying during the long and cold Canadian winter.  No so much of a nasty winter in Comox but further inland it gets tough.  I grew up just about as far as possible from any ocean, so the winters were very cold and long.   It didn't help.... I was never any good at partying.