Recently, even The AARP admitted that just maybe, possibly, sometime in the 'far off future' the Social Security system might need some tweaking.
They offer up no specifics, and state that reductions should be 'minimal' and also shouldn't effect current recipients...but at least they are admitting things can't continue like this forever.
Not everyone is happy about the AARP's position shift.
Doug Henwood, the editor of a liberal business blog and Internet-radio program who has written on Social Security, said AARP's willingness to consider cuts in benefits "reads like a sign that this former lobby for the interest of older Americans has now transformed itself completely into an insurance company."I would say 'Oh, Boo-Hoo' but I know for a fact that this is exactly how folks have felt about the NRA in the past when they have offered compromise solutions. I'm glad that the people at the AARP are finally willing to face up to the reality of a situation(But the NRA still sucks for caving on the Assault Weapons Ban).
Even if I was ever installed as Dictator for Life, I'm not sure I could go cut Social Security off at the knees. There are people who had to pay into Social Security for 40+ years, and it would be totally improper to not give them what they thought they were going to get. I do think though, that a couple of mathematicians could come up with some plan to buy us a few years by bumping the age from 62 to 66 or 67, and then work on some kind of sliding scale of payments/benefits, so that folks in their 50's know they are getting 75% of what they thought they were, but paying in 75% each month, at 45 you are doing 40% payments and benefits, and at say 35...you are on your own...better get investing.
Of course, I picked 35 because I just turned 36...screw those young kids...don't touch my 20% that my plan would let me have.