I'm not confused at all. You are correct up until you say that there is no trust fund. Then you become confused.
From SSA's standpoint they have assets. They have a box full of U.S Treasury bonds. Just like China has a box full of U.S. Treasury bonds. It's an asset. And it's appropriate to say that SSA has assets just like it's appropriate to say China has assets.
SSA has assets. It's the U.S. Treasury that doesn't have assets. The U.S. Treasury has a boatload of debt that it's going to have to pay on. Either through tax revenues or rollover borrowing. That doesn't change the fact that SSA has assets and those assets have value.
Now neither of us like the fact that congress has directed the U.S. Treasury to borrow and spend all of this money. But that's not SSA's problem. To say SSA doesn't have assets, is equivalent to saying that Ford Motor Credit doesn't have an asset, just because all they have is a note from you, and you don't have a lot of cash. You've got earning power and Ford Motor Credit will collect on that note. Be assured SSA will collect on that note from the U.S. too. The U.S. is not going to default on the debt owed to the SSA. It will be paid.
Your last comment is true. Taxpayers are on the hook for all the funds that the treasury has borrowed. The U. S. treasury either has to tax to pay it's debt or it has to issue more debt. And that's whether it was borrowed from SSA or from China.
The problem with your comments, is that it is neither true or appropriate to say that there is no SSA trust fund. Clearly SSA has a legal claim against the U.S. government. If the treasury failed to redeem bonds held by the SSA that would be clearly be a default, but there is no chance of that ever happening.
That you and I both want the treasury to have set aside funds for all the debt they have issued or made real investments with real paybacks. Doesn't mean the treasury doesn't really owe the funds, and will have to come up with the cash.
Now to be fair, some of what the treasury spends on are real investments. Defense is a real investment that protects our country and the treasury's ability to raise funds. Some infrastructure projects increase commerce and increase treasury revenues. But a lot is clearly inexcusably wasted. And I don't like it either.
You say numerous unintelligent and irrational things.
I’ll respond to one.
You say that when the U.S. Government holds U.S. Treasury bonds they are just as much an asset to them as those bonds would be to China if it was China holding them. This is monumentally illogical. A U.S. Treasury bond is a contract for a stream of cash payments between the holder of the bond and the U.S. Treasury, the issuer. If China holds those bonds then they are entitled to receive that stream of payments in return for the fixed payment they made previously when they bought the bond. If the U.S. Government holds a U.S. Treasury bond they are entitled to receive the payments but they are also obliged to make them. Thus the net value to the U.S. Government of that bond which they hold is zero.
Everything else you have said in your posts to this thread is equally irrational as the above. I am beginning to suspect that you are an evil lying commie. If you are not an evil lying commie then you are crazy and stupid. Either way, you will never say anything decent and true. That I am sure of.