So Congress and the Reagan administration made a few tweaks to the system, and Social Security, more than 30 years later, is still not in danger of "going broke." Furthermore, what the wingnuts are trying to do is create generational strife in their divide-and-conquer routine. They are also pulling this shit with public pensions trying to make people in the private sector resentful instead of them being resentful of the feds having created loopholes in ERISA that gave companies permission to gut private pensions.
It is all about undermining support while continuing to pick people's pockets in order to enrich themselves further. However, the Democrats have to be watched that they don't continue neoliberal bullshit from the likes of the WTO and other outfits still clinging to a libertarian economic cult that has been debunked again and again and again.
From the article:
Rubio misled his listeners by using the word bankrupt not to describe a situation in which Social Security has no money and must shut down, but one in which the Social Security trust fund reaches a balance of zero.
But a balance of zero in the trust fund is nothing like bankruptcy. (Rubio’s claim that Social Security’s supposed bankruptcy will then lead to national bankruptcy is so absurd as to require a separate column.) Even with a zero balance in the trust fund, the system could still pay benefits equal to incoming revenues, which would be (as I noted above) at least 71 percent of the maximum benefit level, even in a long-term depressed economy.
According to the trustees, the trust fund could reach a zero balance as early as 2028 in such a depressed economy, or in 2034 in the middle-range scenario (which is the estimate most often reported by news organizations as unquestioned fact).
If the economy returns to something like normal health, however, the trust fund would not be depleted during the entire 75-year range of the forecast (through 2090, when Chelsea will be 99 years old).