I object to the 'on the dole' line: a system I've had no say in whether or not I wanted to participate, for which every paycheck I've ever earned has been robbed, and the system wishes I'd die before I could at least get my money back, and if I live long enough to apply for it I'll be on the dole?

One problem is that even though people are living longer that doesn't necessarily translate into being able to work a lot longer.
A 70 year old just can't do a lot of manual laborish jobs and they do get forgetful.
Would you want a forgetful CPA?
Some can work until they're 90, others would have a problem going much past 70.

I don't know what's right, but one size fits all wouldn't be best, but is the only way we could go, politically speaking.
I was just saying that people my age should have a retirement age of 70.

I'm 47.
I would suggest that you can change a 50 year old's retirement age. It'll be a shitstorm, but should keep the 60+ers (who vote) from getting upset if you sell it as "protecting SS".

Of course, you'll need the Dems onboard for Minitru to do that, so that makes it much less probable.

We're just a little short, relatively, to being able to afford to do all the things that are "right" for the poor and helpless, but we're still short of the resources and we have our self-proclaimed "elite" basically in lockstep that we need to do it.
Interesting times indeed.

Good post. The disconnect between what is promised and what is possible is the biggest problem. I'm 30 and I'm not counting on social security to be solvent, or even having a traditional retirement at all. I'm expecting to live off savings and work part time as long as I'm physically able. Even my parents, who are in their young 50's, are preparing for part time self employment after 65 since they're not fully funded for retirement.

And yet, I don't want social security to be made solvent because I know the tax level required to accomplish that will crush private enterprise and economic mobility, including mine but also anyone younger. That's the real danger, that we'll pass the point at which the George W Bush plan or the Paul Ryan plan can solve things and still keep the plates spinning, and that we'll try to preserve the status quo so long a hard crash will be inevitable.

I've just got to agree with Firehand and Veeshir.

Some how using the word "dole" is offensive when you have been charged every day of your working life for something that was "sold" as a retirement. Many of us have figured out it would never be enough,and those able have done what they could to add to it. But it's still not right to imply you've got your hand out for "free" money.

And Veeshir is quite correct,living longer and being able to work longer are not the same things.I know for a fact that it is not physically possible for me at almost sixty to do the physical work I did at forty...While at this time I plan to work well past sixty five,moving the age up to say seventy, is just going to result in more disability SS payments....

So,what ya gonna do? Something has to give no doubt. The system's broke

LE was 58 in 1930. FDR used SS as another tax, nothing more.
A tax. A money grab disguised as compassion.

Dr Kill is correct that Social Security was a tax, but that is not nearly all. FDR’s scheme was a fundamental shift away from self-responsibility.

As noted in the original blog, the change is life expectancy is one dimension of the fraud. But there is another, even more important dimension, which is the scope of coverage.

A humane society sets a safety net for the weakest 10%. Only a committed socialist sets a spider web to trap everyone…

******

Suppose there are 10 people, one of whom is poor. Th right thing to do is have each of the 9 give up 10¢, , so that the 10th person gets 90¢.
But instead of doing that, FDR and the radical left created a system where all of the 9 were taxed $1.00. Then EVERYONE got 90¢ back.
This was done so that government would have more power. Roosevelt himself said openly that just giving the one poor person a subsidy might limit government’s ability to manipulate and manage.
This scheme has many evil effects.

• First, they felt it was better to fool people, taking a dollar and giving back 90¢, rather than openly and honestly asking them to give a dime to the poor.

• Second, getting back their own 90¢ got people hooked on the fallacy of free government money. It distorts personal incentives. By giving the other 9 people back their OWN 90¢, it creates the desperate illusion that government can actually give you something. That foster dependency and destroys initiative. But government creates nothing, invents nothing, earns nothing. Government is merely a redistribution scheme. Worse, it is in fact a net drain. Government takes in 100, re-distributes 60 and wastes 40. Worst of all, that 60 is given not for need but for patronage. So government must do only what is absolutely necessary, and be held in tight check beyond that.

• Third, It gives government control of far too much of our lives. Bureaucrats love the bloat that goes with handling ten times the money actually needed. It gives them the power to micromanage our lives, and engage is social engineering at their insular whim.

I agree with the poster who stated that we had no choice in whether we wanted to participate in SS. Regarding whether SS participants, many like me who will pay far, far more into the system than we will likely ever take out, are "on the dole" is a misleading dishonest characterization to put it lightly. If one pays more into the system than one receives, is it accurate or honest to characterize it as being "on the dole"?

On the other hand, there is a very large group of Americans working in the public sector (city, state and federal govts) who can retire after 20 or 30 years and receive 80% or 90% of their max earning years immediately upon retirement. Unlike us Social Security serfs, the government retirees get to start collecting IMMEDIATELY upon retirement whether that be 40 yrs old or 55 yrs old. Whereas the rest of us have to wait until age 65. That's the real imbalance which needs to be discussed. What we have in place is a disastrous system with private workers having to work well into their 60's or 70's in order to pay for the Caribbean cruise vacations of govt workers who retired in their 40's or 50's. It's outrageous as hell. Public pensions need to be slashed and brought into reality

"On the dole" just means you're getting government money instead of working, without prejudice as to whether you earned it or not, or how much more paid in than you received.

Unfortunately, under the SS system as it is set up you don't actually save any money; the government spends everything you give them, and when you're paid it comes out of today's taxes. It's a Ponzi scheme.