The "raiding" of the Social Security Trust. What you don't know, and why you're probably an idiot.

[Toro]

Nope.. The surplus was an ASSET to the General Fund. Because it was stolen. The Treasury doesn't just register "a credit to SS" --- They issue NEW DEBT and then allow SS the ability to draw on based on that NEW debt. They SPENT the same $1 twice on the backs of the taxpayer.

I'm sorry. You don't understand this. And again, I don't blame you. It's confusing to people who don't work in pension finance.

The United States Treasury does NOT issue new debt to fund SS. If you think this is true, you are mis-informed.

 

[kaz]

Nope.. The surplus was an ASSET to the General Fund. Because it was stolen. The Treasury doesn't just register "a credit to SS" --- They issue NEW DEBT and then allow SS the ability to draw on based on that NEW debt. They SPENT the same $1 twice on the backs of the taxpayer.

I'm sorry. You don't understand this. And again, I don't blame you. It's confusing to people who don't work in pension finance.

The United States Treasury does NOT issue new debt to fund SS. If you think this is true, you are mis-informed.

Right, the guy who thinks the GENERAL FUND loaning the GENERAL FUND money is an asset is telling someone they "don't understand this." Now that's classic

 

[Toro]

So in the University of toronto you think that loaning yourself money is an asset, and that makes it "better?" this must be some use of the word "better" I hadn't heard before...

And whether or not you have a reliable income, loaning YOURSELF money is not an asset anywhere to anyone

Wrong.

You do not understand the basic nature of assets and liabilities of the Treasury market. All Treasury securities are claims on the assets of economic activity of the United States.

Top 10%, eh? How sad.

 

[Toro]

Nope.. The surplus was an ASSET to the General Fund. Because it was stolen. The Treasury doesn't just register "a credit to SS" --- They issue NEW DEBT and then allow SS the ability to draw on based on that NEW debt. They SPENT the same $1 twice on the backs of the taxpayer.

I'm sorry. You don't understand this. And again, I don't blame you. It's confusing to people who don't work in pension finance.

The United States Treasury does NOT issue new debt to fund SS. If you think this is true, you are mis-informed.

Right, the guy who thinks the GENERAL FUND loaning the GENERAL FUND money is an asset is telling someone they "don't understand this." Now that's classic

Wrong.

Your University of Michigan MBA has failed you. You should have gone to school in Canada. You might have understood American finance better.

The General Fund does not lend to the General Fund money. The funds from the SS trusts are transferred to the General Fund, and the Treasury registers a credit owed to the trust for the funds transferred to the General fund from the Trusts. The SS trusts then register a debit from the Treasury.

This isn't hard for anyone who went to a real school.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nope.. The surplus was an ASSET to the General Fund. Because it was stolen. The Treasury doesn't just register "a credit to SS" --- They issue NEW DEBT and then allow SS the ability to draw on based on that NEW debt. They SPENT the same $1 twice on the backs of the taxpayer.

I'm sorry. You don't understand this. And again, I don't blame you. It's confusing to people who don't work in pension finance.

The United States Treasury does NOT issue new debt to fund SS. If you think this is true, you are mis-informed.

That's hysterical AND sad.. The treasury issues NEW DEBT for every $1 they don't have.. Guess you missed that part in their "prospectus"..

For the THIRD TIME !!!! Page 12,,,,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Or from the CBO ----




Federal Debt and Interest Costs

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

Look -- I realize how much misrepresentation and outright lying there's been about "Trust Fund" and it's difficult to separate the "fairy tales" in the first 10 pages of an SSA report -- from the DISCLAIMERS that they toss in on page 12. It's enough to lull 98% of taxpayers and beneficiaries to sleep. Especially when they BLINDLY support the SS program as it's been ineffectively run.

But get you head clear and understand that you've been punked and that last statement you made is just FLAT OUT wrong.

 

[Toro]

That's hysterical AND sad.. The treasury issues NEW DEBT for every $1 they don't have.. Guess you missed that part in their "prospectus"..

My apologies if I was unclear about the nomenclature. Generally, "debt" is used to describe Treasury securities. Treasury securities are NOT issued to fund the SS trusts. Instead, the Treasury issues securities to fund its cash flow needs, and non-marketable liabilities are credited to the SS trusts. All securities and non-marketable liabilities are considered "debt." You are correct in that all debt includes securities and non-marketable liabilities of the trust.

For the THIRD TIME !!!! Page 12,,,,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Or from the CBO ----




Federal Debt and Interest Costs

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.

Look -- I realize how much misrepresentation and outright lying there's been about "Trust Fund" and it's difficult to separate the "fairy tales" in the first 10 pages of an SSA report -- from the DISCLAIMERS that they toss in on page 12. It's enough to lull 98% of taxpayers and beneficiaries to sleep. Especially when they BLINDLY support the SS program as it's been ineffectively run.

But get you head clear and understand that you've been punked and that last statement you made is just FLAT OUT wrong.

There is nothing that you have quoted from the sites which supports your incorrect assertion that the "surplus was stolen" or that it is a fraud. That is utterly incorrect. Nor does what you have posted from SS contradict what I have written.

I fully understand the interaction between the Treasury and the SS Trusts. If you think the Trusts are a fraud, you are wrong, and don't understand how SS works.

Since you don't understand finance, that's not surprising.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's hysterical AND sad.. The treasury issues NEW DEBT for every $1 they don't have.. Guess you missed that part in their "prospectus"..

My apologies if I was unclear about the nomenclature. Generally, "debt" is used to describe Treasury securities. Treasury securities are NOT issued to fund the SS trusts. Instead, the Treasury issues securities to fund its cash flow needs, and non-marketable liabilities are credited to the SS trusts. All securities and non-marketable liabilities are considered "debt." You are correct in that all debt includes securities and non-marketable liabilities of the trust.

For the THIRD TIME !!!! Page 12,,,,

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Or from the CBO ----




Federal Debt and Interest Costs

Gross debt, which comprises federal debt held by the public plus Treasury securities held by federal trust funds and other government accounts, is sometimes used to evaluate the government's overall fiscal situation. At the end of 2010, gross federal debt totaled $13.5 trillion--the $9.0 trillion in debt held by the public plus $4.5 trillion in debt held by government accounts. More than half of the latter amount is held by the Social Security trust funds. Because those trust funds and other government accounts are part of the federal government, transactions between them and the Treasury are intragovernmental; that is, the government securities in those funds are an asset to the individual programs but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources needed to redeem the government securities in the trust funds and other accounts in some future year must be generated from taxes, income from other government sources, or borrowing by the government in that year.


Look -- I realize how much misrepresentation and outright lying there's been about "Trust Fund" and it's difficult to separate the "fairy tales" in the first 10 pages of an SSA report -- from the DISCLAIMERS that they toss in on page 12. It's enough to lull 98% of taxpayers and beneficiaries to sleep. Especially when they BLINDLY support the SS program as it's been ineffectively run.

But get you head clear and understand that you've been punked and that last statement you made is just FLAT OUT wrong.

There is nothing that you have quoted from the sites which supports your incorrect assertion that the "surplus was stolen" or that it is a fraud. That is utterly incorrect. Nor does what you have posted from SS contradict what I have written.

I fully understand the interaction between the Treasury and the SS Trusts. If you think the Trusts are a fraud, you are wrong, and don't understand how SS works.

Since you don't understand finance, that's not surprising.

Your concept that "non-marketable securities" (IOUs) are provided BACK to the T.F. is silly. Because that's what's IN the T.F. Shortfalls in SS income to cover the checks requires the Treasury to RAISE REAL CASH. Clearly NEW debt IS issued to cover the income shortfalls for SS. That is because -- as both the SSA and CBO admitted -- there are only 3 vehicles to COVER that "obligation".. I'm adding the obvious 3rd and 4th..

1) We have not raised taxes to cover the shortfalls -- so that's a no-go.
2) We have not reduced spending to cover the shortfalls -- so that's a no-go.
3) The government is not an running a surplus -- so there is no cash to do it.
4) And as you already been told by BOTH the SSA and CBO

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

5) So that only leaves the avenue of "additional borrowing from public" or as the CBO puts it --- "borrowing by the govt in that year. "

REAL SORRY you don't seem to understand that NEW DEBT IS being created to cover the shortfalls. And when those shortfalls are covered by ISSUING new debt, the Trust fund accounting will be marked down by the appropriate entry for that year. The "interest" on "Trust Fund notes" is purely fictitious because ALL "redemptions" of the IOUs in TF have to paid (by a BROKE-ASS govt) thru the same method of sticking tax payers with NEW debt.

As for not recognizing the 1st time you were robbed -- I'm leaning towards you sandbagging. Because its obvious to anyone that over $$Trill in SS surplus was diverted and spent with no benefit to the future liquidity of the T.F. No way there was an investment in anything of value to folks being forced to PAY AGAIN for a 2nd time for money that was taken from their paychecks for about 35 years.

8th grader civics translation.. EVERY dollar redeemed from the T.F. is paid for by $1 of new debt on the backs of the taxpayers. The $1 that was originally diverted from the SS surplus is gone. Bought bombs and viagra and investments in Solyndra. So that's $2 plus interest on the new debt instruments for every T.F $ redeemed. I'll skip the phoney "interest on investments" part -- because in reality -- that's just a book keeping invention to keep the fraud alive. Only thing gonna be "redeemed" from the T.F. is the amount needed to cover the yearly SS deficits that we have been running since 2010.. The "crisis" is here. There was no "investment".

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Toro ---

Go get your boss or corporate accountant to show me ANYTHING in the last post that is not true.
Then get mad and understand why some folks want to slash spending and start being FISCALLY responsible
instead of creating Fairy Tales for the masses about what a great job the Feds do managing and investing all those
bare T.Funds. Indian T.F -- Hiway T.F. --- all the same deal. EXCEPT THIS T.F. hits America in the pockets. And robbing Indians is 200 yrs old.. If taxpayers ever wake up and actually realize how badly this has been handled -- We're ALL gonna be fiscal conservatives.

 

[flacaltenn]

I generally hate these so-called "fact check" sites, but here's another verification of everything I've laid out..

Sanders Misleads on Social Security


“Social Security adds to the unified deficit, which is the deficit we almost all discuss all the time,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in an email interview. “It does so because we spend a lot more on Social Security benefits than we raise in payroll tax and other related revenue.”
Goldwein told us that Sanders’ statement contains a kernel of truth in that Social Security technically can’t run a debt. “That means that any [yearly] deficits it’s running now can only legally be paid because it was running surpluses in the past,” he says. But the government spent the surplus on other things. It owes Social Security the money, which is held in the form of Treasury securities. In order to pay it, the government must cut spending in other areas, raise taxes or borrow from the public.
Because current payroll taxes don’t produce enough revenue to pay Social Security benefits, the program is contributing to the yearly deficits.

For years, Social Security was a boon to the government’s bottom line, lowering the deficit and even causing a budget surplus in 1998 and 2001. But now outlays outpace revenues, and the government has to use deficit spending to honor its obligations to the program.

 

[kaz]

So in the University of toronto you think that loaning yourself money is an asset, and that makes it "better?" this must be some use of the word "better" I hadn't heard before...

And whether or not you have a reliable income, loaning YOURSELF money is not an asset anywhere to anyone

Wrong.

You do not understand the basic nature of assets and liabilities of the Treasury market. All Treasury securities are claims on the assets of economic activity of the United States.

Top 10%, eh? How sad.

So if I loan myself money and guarantee it with my future income, then it is an asset. Wow, that makes sense now. Actually that would make sense, except, it doesn't work that way when you loan it TO YOURSELF. You don't understand the difference between me loaning you $1,000 and you loaning it to yourself. I'd sue Toronto for your money back.

So anyway, using your theory, I went to the bank and tried to use my $10 million loan to myself as collateral. They rejected it saying that isn't really an asset. Can you call them and explain it for me?

LOL, they did say to stop listening to bull on the internet, wow, they know you! That part was cool

 

[kaz]

Nope.. The surplus was an ASSET to the General Fund. Because it was stolen. The Treasury doesn't just register "a credit to SS" --- They issue NEW DEBT and then allow SS the ability to draw on based on that NEW debt. They SPENT the same $1 twice on the backs of the taxpayer.

I'm sorry. You don't understand this. And again, I don't blame you. It's confusing to people who don't work in pension finance.

The United States Treasury does NOT issue new debt to fund SS. If you think this is true, you are mis-informed.

Right, the guy who thinks the GENERAL FUND loaning the GENERAL FUND money is an asset is telling someone they "don't understand this." Now that's classic

Wrong.

Your University of Michigan MBA has failed you. You should have gone to school in Canada. You might have understood American finance better.

The General Fund does not lend to the General Fund money. The funds from the SS trusts are transferred to the General Fund, and the Treasury registers a credit owed to the trust for the funds transferred to the General fund from the Trusts. The SS trusts then register a debit from the Treasury.

This isn't hard for anyone who went to a real school.

A real school that thinks loaning money to yourself is an asset? So they are a "real" what exactly? Fortunately you paid them in Canadian dollars, not real money

 

[Claudette]

What a load of crap. Taking our Social Security contributions and spending it on other crap without any means of repaying the money is not investing it. That will land you right in prison in the private sector. 2% interest that will never be paid is $0.00

That these corrupt thieves now tell us they have to raise the retirement age so that some of us will die before collecting a dime, and others will get less than promised or nothing at all is a clue that the money was not 'invested'. Government stole the money, they spent it, they can't pay us back so now they want to screw us over.

Yup and you can thank LBJ for putting SS in the General fund when he needed money for the Vietnam war. They have been robbing it ever since.

They rob our SS but they don't rob their own which is separate from ours.

 

[Toro]

A real school that thinks loaning money to yourself is an asset? So they are a "real" what exactly? Fortunately you paid them in Canadian dollars, not real money

You are not loaning yourself money. You are paying into a trust fund from which you are receiving debits that build up over time. When you retire, you will have a claim on the trust, which will pay down as you draw SS benefits. There are all sorts of financial entities which offer this. It's no different than how an annuity or defined contribution pension plan works.

Do you have a cash management service from a bank for your business? Are they investing in money market funds? That MM fund will be invested in Treasury bills, which are claims on the US Treasury. That MM fund is an asset of yours and a liability of the Treasury.

All debt is an asset of someone else. If you own debt of GE, that is an asset of yours and a liability of GE. If you own Treasury securities, that is an asset of yours and a liability of the US Treasury.

The SS trusts are no different. The assets of the SS trusts are what is owed to it by the US Treasury. The liabilities of the trusts are the claims on it from the recipients.

It isn't "us lending to ourselves." It is an inter-generational distribution of assets and liabilities within the nation.

 

[kaz]

A real school that thinks loaning money to yourself is an asset? So they are a "real" what exactly? Fortunately you paid them in Canadian dollars, not real money

You are not loaning yourself money. You are paying into a trust fund from which you are receiving debits that build up over time. When you retire, you will have a claim on the trust, which will pay down as you draw SS benefits. There are all sorts of financial entities which offer this. It's no different than how an annuity or defined contribution pension plan works.

Do you have a cash management service from a bank for your business? Are they investing in money market funds? That MM fund will be invested in Treasury bills, which are claims on the US Treasury. That MM fund is an asset of yours and a liability of the Treasury.

All debt is an asset of someone else. If you own debt of GE, that is an asset of yours and a liability of GE. If you own Treasury securities, that is an asset of yours and a liability of the US Treasury.

The SS trusts are no different. The assets of the SS trusts are what is owed to it by the US Treasury. The liabilities of the trusts are the claims on it from the recipients.

It isn't "us lending to ourselves." It is an inter-generational distribution of assets and liabilities within the nation.

If there is a social security trust fund, then your children pay for your social security in Federal taxes. If there is no trust fund, your children pay for your social security in Federal taxes.

At some point, you got lost in the syntax of securities and you forgot what they actually are

 

[Flash]

The real lesson of Social Security is that you simply can't trust the filthy ass government. After all the government is managed by a significant number of corrupt people, often with records of lying, that were elected by special interest groups. What could possibly go wrong?

Why would any sane person want to give the government their hard earned money every pay day with the expectation that maybe they would get a rinky dink pension one day? Only a stupid person would trust the government to keep their money for them.

It should not surprise any body that the government mismanaged the Social Security program. The government mismanages everything else.

When are we going to wise up pull our heads out of our asses and stop trusting government to look after our interest?

The government needs to be defunded down to the basic minimal functions like defense, police, courts etc. We need to get the government out of the business of welfare, subsidies, bailouts and all entitlements.

 

[Flash]

Social Security is socialism -- no doubt about it -- and America loves it. Medicare is the son of Social Security, and America loves it. These programs inspire wild hostility from the right because righties correctly see them as the nose of the camel under the tent.

Going back to the founding of Social Security under FDR, Democrats have done a lot of tap dancing to avoid having to state the obvious: that the "Social" in Social Security is socialism. What SS secures is society. It does this by guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for people who can no longer earn.

Social Security is not an investment. It is not a retirement policy. It is a tax supported inter-generational social contract to maintain social stability. Stupid Republicans criticize Social Security for failing to do something it isn't attempting to do. Nobody cares about the quibble until some idiotic GOP politician suggests abandoning Social Security. Then, BOOM! the roof falls in on the Republicans and they go back to bellyaching about something else.

Social Security is a friggin Ponzi Scheme with a bankrupting $65 trillion liability. The payroll tax that funds the program has become a slush fund for every corrupt politician to raid to fund whatever they think they need to buy somebody's vote.

FDR was an idiot trying to impose socialism on the US.

 

[healthmyths]

the thought of a RW wanting to, or managing an investment portfolio when they can't understand the difference between deficit/debt makes me cry with laughter.

Do you understand the difference? Please elucidate!

If this is a GAMBLE tell me why people have been investing for the last 119 years?
The DJIA first appeared on May 26, 1896,
The starting point for the DJIA was 40.94,
a far cry from the 17,910 average in November 6,2015.
An average annual growth rate of the DJIA of 376%!!!
www.businessnewsdaily.com/3342-dow-jones-industrial-average.html

But of course people like YOU know so much more about how to accumulate nest eggs!

By the way all opinions are based on facts. Facts that can be sourced.

Where are your facts that you base your "opinion" on?

 

[Toro]

A real school that thinks loaning money to yourself is an asset? So they are a "real" what exactly? Fortunately you paid them in Canadian dollars, not real money

You are not loaning yourself money. You are paying into a trust fund from which you are receiving debits that build up over time. When you retire, you will have a claim on the trust, which will pay down as you draw SS benefits. There are all sorts of financial entities which offer this. It's no different than how an annuity or defined contribution pension plan works.

Do you have a cash management service from a bank for your business? Are they investing in money market funds? That MM fund will be invested in Treasury bills, which are claims on the US Treasury. That MM fund is an asset of yours and a liability of the Treasury.

All debt is an asset of someone else. If you own debt of GE, that is an asset of yours and a liability of GE. If you own Treasury securities, that is an asset of yours and a liability of the US Treasury.

The SS trusts are no different. The assets of the SS trusts are what is owed to it by the US Treasury. The liabilities of the trusts are the claims on it from the recipients.

It isn't "us lending to ourselves." It is an inter-generational distribution of assets and liabilities within the nation.

If there is a social security trust fund, then your children pay for your social security in Federal taxes. If there is no trust fund, your children pay for your social security in Federal taxes.

At some point, you got lost in the syntax of securities and you forgot what they actually are

I know exactly what they are. As I explained in my link earlier in this thread, SS acts EXACTLY like a government bond fund. Except rather than issuing formal securities, the trusts are debited and credited as if they were buying and selling Treasury securities. The flow of funds and the balance sheets are EXACTLY the same. It is economically no different than you investing your retirement in a Fidelity government bond fund - which you can. The difference is that the trusts cut out the middle man.

There are some practical differences between issuing securities and nonmarketable liabilities, but the economics are the same.

 

[healthmyths]

What current surplus?

One minor quibble is that government has gotten used to these loans to provide part of the budget. Plus as long as SS has a collection surplus, they really don't have to "pay back" anything, new loans are made as the old ones are "cashed out".

Beyond personal finance, once SS becomes non-self sufficient, no more loans will be made, and SS will have to collect on the loans outstanding.

I'm going to disagree with your opening premise. Investing excess cash in the Trust is always going happen, regardless of spending by Congress. It does not fund other parts of the budget. It merely uses cash on hand now, and redirects incoming cash next week or next month back into the SS Trust. If the SS Trust did not have an excess for intra-governmental loans, the cash would be obtained by selling bonds to extra-governmental entities.

You seem to be under a false idea that government's debts are akin to a maxed credit card of $10,000 where the holder only pays the $25 minimum payment each month. Government debt is accrued by the selling of short term bonds. You give us $1000 now, we'll give you $1050 in three months (actual maturation periods vary). This is a continual cycling that occurs. The cash in the SS Trust that is loaned out is constantly being repaid, and subsequently reloaned.

The short term transactions may be solvent, but when SS starts to operate in the red as a whole, you will have less money going into the federal bank account than said bank account has to pay out, over a longer period.

The current surplus in that money cycle allows the feds to play down the actual operating deficit, but sooner or later SS will be paying out more than it takes in on its own ledger, which will mean the flow of surplus from the SS fund to the General fund will reverse.

What SS surplus? Where are your facts there is a Surplus?
Here are the FACTS regarding current Cash Flow IN to SS from Employee and I'm sure YOU don't know it but the Employer matches the payments!
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

Trustees say SS will be insolvent by 2033...

WHY ? Because there are MORE people living longer then the AGE 65 when SS first set up 85 years ago when most people didn't live to 65.

 

[martybegan]

What current surplus?

One minor quibble is that government has gotten used to these loans to provide part of the budget. Plus as long as SS has a collection surplus, they really don't have to "pay back" anything, new loans are made as the old ones are "cashed out".

Beyond personal finance, once SS becomes non-self sufficient, no more loans will be made, and SS will have to collect on the loans outstanding.

I'm going to disagree with your opening premise. Investing excess cash in the Trust is always going happen, regardless of spending by Congress. It does not fund other parts of the budget. It merely uses cash on hand now, and redirects incoming cash next week or next month back into the SS Trust. If the SS Trust did not have an excess for intra-governmental loans, the cash would be obtained by selling bonds to extra-governmental entities.

You seem to be under a false idea that government's debts are akin to a maxed credit card of $10,000 where the holder only pays the $25 minimum payment each month. Government debt is accrued by the selling of short term bonds. You give us $1000 now, we'll give you $1050 in three months (actual maturation periods vary). This is a continual cycling that occurs. The cash in the SS Trust that is loaned out is constantly being repaid, and subsequently reloaned.

The short term transactions may be solvent, but when SS starts to operate in the red as a whole, you will have less money going into the federal bank account than said bank account has to pay out, over a longer period.

The current surplus in that money cycle allows the feds to play down the actual operating deficit, but sooner or later SS will be paying out more than it takes in on its own ledger, which will mean the flow of surplus from the SS fund to the General fund will reverse.

What SS surplus? Where are your facts there is a Surplus?
Here are the FACTS regarding current Cash Flow IN to SS from Employee and I'm sure YOU don't know it but the Employer matches the payments!
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2013/fast_facts13.pdf

Trustees say SS will be insolvent by 2033...

View attachment 54895


View attachment 54894

WHY ? Because there are MORE people living longer then the AGE 65 when SS first set up 85 years ago when most people didn't live to 65.

View attachment 54896

Sorry, I thought net income still exceeded outlays, but looking at the SS website it appears they are now dipping into the "Trust Fund". And yes, I know employers match it, as I had a job back in college where I was an "independent Contractor" and had to pay both sides myself.