@JimGant 

The SS trust funds have two relationships with the Treasury.  The Treasury serves as a bank for the SS trust funds.  Here is how the Treasury fulfills that role:

 

Since the Treasury is the payer of every SS benefit AND the initial recipient of ALL FICA taxes, it makes sense that the SSA trust fund does not transfer any funds to or receive any funds from the Treasury.  FICA funds received become increases in the SS trust fund T-bill balance and all SS benefit payments become decreases in that balance.  Also the interest payable on the T-bill balance is delivered via an increase in the trust fund's T-bill balance.  The SS trust doesn't move any funds around.  That work is all done by the Treasury.  This is the same everyday processing done on your chequing account at a bank.  I'm pretty sure typical banking functions don't involve sleight of hand or dirty little secrets.

 

 

The second relationship between the Treasury and the SS trust funds is strictly as lender/borrower.  Here is the description of that relationship:

 

When the SSA trusts buy T-bills they fulfill the same role as EVERY other T-bill owner fills.  They become lenders that fund the US national debt.  As a T-bill owner the SS trust funds have the same limited relationship with the Treasury as any other investor.  The SS trust fund's effect on the Treasury is not greater or less than that of any other T-bill investor.

 

 

Where the Cato Institute and many others, go wrong is conflating the two relationships between the Treasury and the SS trust funds.  This is a serious mistake.  The two relationships are completely separate and independent.

 

I wonder why the Cato Institute ignores the fact that the reduction in amounts owed to the SS trust fund offsets the extra borrowing required to cover the shortfall in FICA taxes.... political bias maybe?

 

Just for fun, I'll be calling the Cato Institute to see if I can reach Romina Boccia the author of the Cato article you linked in a previous post.  I already emailed them.

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

Why?

 

Not going to take the bait.

14 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I wonder why the Cato Institute ignores the fact that the reduction in amounts owed to the SS trust fund offsets the extra borrowing required to cover the shortfall in FICA taxes.... political bias maybe?

 

No, because they know that intragovernmental debt is a non player when it comes to reporting a meaningful deficit number. And that only public debt, e.g., those bonds sold to China should be considered.

 

In your example, having to sell $70B to China to cover the SS benefit cash flow shortfall -- means nothing, because it is matched dollar for dollar in the drawdown of Trust fund IOU's. So, on your accounting worksheet, there's absolutely no increase in deficit -- meaning, it makes no difference whether or not the Trust fund is running a cash flow shortfall -- or a cash flow surplus. But, of course, it does make a difference. So smarter people use different accounting worksheets.

 

By the way, intragovernmental debt is recognized as a number that need be sidestepped in certain situations -- to get to a meaningful position. Such is the case when it comes to the debt ceiling -- where the intragovernmental debt represented by the SS Trust fund -- is excluded. 

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

No, because they know that intragovernmental debt is a non player when it comes to reporting a meaningful deficit number. And that only public debt, e.g., those bonds sold to China should be considered.

Then they ignore the facts.  The SS trust funds are FUNDING the national debt.  That's indisputably a fact.  Essentially ALL government borrowing is included in the national debt.  Et voilá.

 

Although the numbers are now dated, this article does not ignore any details like the Cato article does:

https://www.epi.org/publication/social_security_and_the_federal_deficit/

 

Who do you choose to believe?

Here's the Treasury's listing (MSoft word format) of who owns the national debt:

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/2025/b2025-2fd.doc

 

 

Let me see if I’ve understood all you’ve said/implied:

 

The billions in negative cash flow by the SS Admin since 2010 has NOT increased the annual deficits, because the dollars the Treasury had to borrow from China were zeroed out – in accounting terms -- one for one, by the redemption of Trust fund IOU’s.

 

Thus, you’re of the Bernie Sander’s school of accounting, where the negative cash flow, paid by Chinese dollars, isn’t a problem because the Trust fund doesn’t run out of IOU’s until 2033 or so. Thus it just doesn’t matter that the public deficit has increased by those Chinese dollars, because those Chinese dollars have cancelled an equivalent amount of intragovernment debt. So, rest assured by the likes of a pinko like Bernie Sanders.

 

Now the Cato school of accounting says, hey Houston – we have a problem. And we can’t wait until 2033 to address that problem – the billions in negative cash flow is occurring now – resulting in a public deficit increase equivalent to those Chinese dollars having to be borrowed. That Bernie Sanders, and other fools, believe the Trust fund has equivalent value to those Chinese dollars – is confusing reality with accounting methods. Thus, the only way to present the very real problem is to NOT include intragovernment debt into the equation. Then, maybe Congress will get the message to act now, because the Trust fund really doesn’t give you until 2033 to act.

 

Or do you, like Bernie, believe this negative cash flow since 2010 – doesn’t represent a problem – because the Trust fund hasn’t run out of IOU’s?

 

Too bad the Trust fund didn’t invest their surplus dollars in gold, or a Sovereign Wealth Fund; then we wouldn’t have to have this discussion.

On 7/2/2025 at 3:51 PM, gamb00ler said:

The end result is that SS trust funds do increase their T-bill holdings with every FICA collection.

@JimGant

Here's the exact procedures Treasury uses to invest FICA funds in governments national debt:

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2025/III_A_cyoper.html#:~:text=By law%2C the Department of,the needs of the funds.

 

 

My prediction of the Treasury's procedures was pretty close.

On 7/2/2025 at 6:12 PM, simple1 said:

 

Not going to take the bait.

In other words, as always, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All you can do ie regurgitate the idiocy the left deeds you. 

 

 

On 7/3/2025 at 12:58 PM, JimGant said:

Thus, you’re of the Bernie Sander’s school of accounting, where the negative cash flow, paid by Chinese dollars, isn’t a problem because the Trust fund doesn’t run out of IOU’s until 2033 or so

I never said the shortfall wasn't going to create a problem with benefit payment in the future.  Of course I know that come 2032 that SS benefits will be cut by about 20% unless the government makes changes in the funding of SS.  You aren't paying attention.  My disagreement with you, @TedG and the Cato institute is that the national debt has not yet been impacted by that shortfall.  You three... just keep yelling that I'm wrong supported with nothing but opinion pieces by misinformed authors.  Show me some actual proof!  Give a concrete example of what happens when FICA revenue doesn't cover benefit outlays.  A concrete example will detail at each step where the money goes.  There is no hand waving allowed.  If as you claim, that you understand the process.... that should be a simple task.  I put forth my concrete example within the last few days.

 

The only change in the national debt due to the 2010 and onward shortfall is that the portion of the debt FUNDED by the SS trust fund is decreasing.  That decrease each year will cause the SS trust fund to cease funding a portion of the national debt in 2032.  Since 2010 the Treasury has been slowly switching a portion of the national debt from the SS trust fund to other T-bill purchasers, but the total owed is unchanged.  Just like any other portion of the revolving national debt, the matured/retired T-bills held by the trust fund, are replaced by newly sold T-bills with the same face value.  The overall effect is a wash.

 

I've provided plenty of proof from SSA websites that your understanding of the interaction between the national debt and the SS is WRONG!  There is NO interaction and there never has been.  Come 2032.... that may change.

On 7/2/2025 at 2:40 PM, JimGant said:

....which is: the Trust fund is just an accounting entity, trying to match cash flow in with cash flow out -- to make sure Social Security pays for itself. What's going on now, and since 2010, is: It isn't paying for itself, when you look at cash flow in vs. cash flow out. That the Trust fund has a nice fat surplus number in paper IOU's, for now -- doesn't mean squat. This whole drill is about cash flow.

 

Here's some simple questions for you.  If you miss any of these, you'll never understand why you're wrong about the SS trust fund and the national debt.

 

Are the T-bills held by the SS trust fund real assets?  They're definitely a real liability on the Treasury balance sheet, so they have to be a real asset on somebody's balance sheet.  If not on the trust balance sheet, then where?

 

Are all T-bills and other debt obligations sold by the Treasury part of the national debt?  If you don't agree then what determines if a debt obligation is included or not?  (I've given you the Treasury's answer).

 

If a bank customer has a significant interest bearing savings balance (no overdraft protection) but goes through a long period with no deposits but a lot of withdrawals.... is the bank losing money or adding debt ?  (I mean other than the point spread they lose by not being able to lend out the withdrawn funds).

 

 

 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Give a concrete example of what happens when FICA revenue doesn't cover benefit outlays. 

Well, duh, you have a negative cash flow situation -- are you short on mathematical skills? To accommodate this cash shortfall, the Treasury has to turn to selling bonds to the public -- since we haven't been in a positive tax collection situation since Clinton. And, so, national debt increases proportionally. The value of the Trust fund just represents how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund for loaning its excess cash in years prior. It's not an asset, like gold or Sovereign Trust Fund -- it's just a marker for how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund. Here's where you and Bernie get confused.... Intragovernmental debt is a zero sum game.

 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

The only change in the national debt due to the 2010 and onward shortfall is that the portion of the debt FUNDED by the SS trust fund is decreasing.

That's literally a paper tiger. Those IOU's are NOT an asset, like gold or dollars under a mattress -- they're just a legal reminder of what the Treasury owes the SS Admin. Those excess FICA dollars went internally to US govt assets -- not externally, where, in the future, they could be recouped WITHOUT affecting the US debt picture. Intragovernmental debt is an entirely different animal than public debt -- loaning to yourself ain't the same as loaning to Ahso Wong. 

 

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You three... just keep yelling that I'm wrong supported with nothing but opinion pieces by misinformed authors

Actually, those opinion pieces, like from Cato, certainly have a lot more credence than your representations...

 

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I've provided plenty of proof from SSA websites that your understanding of the interaction between the national debt and the SS is WRONG! 

 

You have? Please refresh my memory. A nicely written article on how the Trust fund affects national debt would be nice. 

36 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Are the T-bills held by the SS trust fund real assets? 

 

Quote

 Intragovernmental debt represents assets for the trust funds holding it but liabilities for the Treasury Department, which issues it. Therefore, it has no net effect on the government's overall finances.

Nope, just markers -- but not assets to the US govt. 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

In other words, as always, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All you can do ie regurgitate the idiocy the left deeds you. 

 

Just not interested in a response with you replying with usual  boiler plate MAGA BS

55 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Well, duh, you have a negative cash flow situation -- are you short on mathematical skills? To accommodate this cash shortfall, the Treasury has to turn to selling bonds to the public -- since we haven't been in a positive tax collection situation since Clinton. And, so, national debt increases proportionally. The value of the Trust fund just represents how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund for loaning its excess cash in years prior. It's not an asset, like gold or Sovereign Trust Fund -- it's just a marker for how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund. Here's where you and Bernie get confused.... Intragovernmental debt is a zero sum game.

 

That's literally a paper tiger. Those IOU's are NOT an asset, like gold or dollars under a mattress -- they're just a legal reminder of what the Treasury owes the SS Admin. Those excess FICA dollars went internally to US govt assets -- not externally, where, in the future, they could be recouped WITHOUT affecting the US debt picture. Intragovernmental debt is an entirely different animal than public debt -- loaning to yourself ain't the same as loaning to Ahso Wong. 

 

Actually, those opinion pieces, like from Cato, certainly have a lot more credence than your representations...

 

 

You have? Please refresh my memory. A nicely written article on how the Trust fund affects national debt would be nice. 

there's no hope for you.... LOL

I'm only here to observe the Trumpard scummy cult members being Jack asses. Very stupid, blinkered  🤡 🤡🤡 - I rest my case.

On 5/27/2025 at 11:21 PM, gargamon said:

A good president works through the old adage of “talk softly and carry a big stick.“ The  current president somehow got it confused(senile?) and uses “talk loudly and carry no stick“.

 

TACO 

 

This one isnt aging very well

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

You have? Please refresh my memory. A nicely written article on how the Trust fund affects national debt would be nice. 

The truth is NOTHING about the SSA affects the national debt..... you'll have to wait until they change the law for that to be anything of interest.  The SSA numbers have been off budget since 1990.... if something is not on the Federal budget.... it can't affect the national debt.  Even when the SS trust fund is depleted.... the Antideficiency law prevents the Federal government for taking money from its budget to sustain payment of SS benefits at 100% of what was promised.

38 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Just not interested in a response with you replying with usual  boiler plate MAGA BS

n other words, as always, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All you can do ie regurgitate the idiocy the left feeds you. 

On 7/2/2025 at 6:11 PM, gamb00ler said:

I wonder why the Cato Institute ignores the fact that the reduction in amounts owed to the SS trust fund offsets the extra borrowing required to cover the shortfall in FICA taxes.... political bias maybe?

Maybe this Cato blog will answer your question.

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt#::

A quote from the blog:

 

Quote

.....the fact that every time Social Security redeems a bond with the Treasury, the Treasury must go out and raise that money from the public by issuing new government debt. So, while Social Security must not add to US debt, on paper, in reality, paying for Social Security benefits in excess of payroll taxes collected does add to the US debt.

 

And.... Donald Trump is "politically dead", according to the chief propagandist & resident muppet at MSNBC., except he ain't. 

 

 

10 hours ago, darbie-foos said:

And.... Donald Trump is "politically dead", according to the chief propagandist & resident muppet at MSNBC., except he ain't. 

 

 

Mr. “Best Biden Ever”

On 7/5/2025 at 8:33 AM, JimGant said:

Maybe this Cato blog will answer your question.

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt#::

A quote from the blog:

 

.....the fact that every time Social Security redeems a bond with the Treasury, the Treasury must go out and raise that money from the public by issuing new government debt. So, while Social Security must not add to US debt, on paper, in reality, paying for Social Security benefits in excess of payroll taxes collected does add to the US debt.

The quote from their blog is quite deceptive.  I say so because they attempt to use the term 'US debt' with two separate meanings.  In the phrase 'Social Security must not add to US debt' Cato must define US debt to actually mean 'national debt'.... that statement is true only if Cato means national debt.  For the later part of the sentence, 'collected does add to the US debt' to be true Cato would have to be using 'US debt' as referring to the public US debt.  There is a very meaningful difference between national debt and public debt.

 

I see no reason to ever use the term 'public debt' unless it is true that the US could default only on the public debt but not on its other debt obligations.

 

The shortfall in FICA taxes would increase the portion of the national debt held by the public.