Nope.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

The 'trust fund' is an accounting exercise.

All ponzis run 2 sets of books.

And that’s a legal Ponzi scheme.

Dual entry account is the basis for all modern accounting for 100s of years. Don't confuse double entry accounting with running two books (dual double entry books).

Ssi would have been far bettrr off if established as a gse. Where early on excess premiums could have yielded a tangible asset base with a roi to underwrite future payments.

As it is now the accounting exercise becomes insolvent in the near future.

And i dont care how many red accounting entries you make.....they still add up to insolvency.

Nah it was fully funded and fine until both party stole from it starting in the 80s because the trust fund had too much money. Im not going to debate facts. The program is failing soon because both parties stole from the fund not because of how it was started.
​​​
​​​​​

And isnt that what haopens in all ponzis? The money changer benefits.

Ssi has never been 'solvent' in the traditional sense because as has been pointed out here....the premiums collected today pay the benefits of today.

South pilots should be able to easily relate to this arrangement....as their unqualified pension payments were similarly never 'sol ent'.

The money changers understood ssi only had to meet todays obligations. So why wouldnt they then decide to take custody of any excess premiums.

Its like a pension. The ceo in year 1 of ur benefit kniws hes not the guy who will hav to write the check 30 yrs on.....so.promise you the world and laugh abt it later

No ponzis fail for a different reason. Im not going to rein all that in, simply because its so easy to learn about if anyone is genuinely interested. If i engage in this nonsense it goes into partisan cliche's from both ends of the spectrum and which always leads to waxing on debt spending.

Its not political. Its human nature. Put trillions in front of anybody and see how long it takes them to resist coming up with a 'good' reason to get their hands on it.

Having a great Delta day, are we? Sound like the male version of a Karen.

So you retire after 20 to 35 years, with millions in a 401k, last 3 years of W2's total over $1 million. And you're going to stand in line with a mother of 3 out of work due to the economy. She got the pink slip last week, you've known the date you're retiring for the last 20 years. Pathetic.