For those, including the AARP, who say we should leave the system alone, or only slightly change it, I have one question : Why in the world would I, given the choice, "invest" in the government (which has been known to waste a dollar or two) at a negative rate of return when I could, investing in the most conservative plan, earn seven or eight percent outside of the government? I am not advocating abolishing the whole SS system; that wouldn't be fair to those who've paid in their entire lives and are now dependent on that check, however small it may be. (Also, my father and my mother-in-law have recently retired, and I couldn't afford to support either one of them much less both of them)
I once asked a person from AARP about that organization's statement that people get more money from SS than they pay in. According to my calculations, that would happen for me sometime around my 317th birthday. The response was that since the system was only now becoming "mature," most recipients received benefits without paying in for their entire working lives. I stated that that is fine for those people, but are those in my generation up the creek? I received no response.
I would love a direct answer to this.
