intothatgoodnight
. . .
Good point about Congress continuing to kick the Social Security can down the road - been going on as long as I can recall - it was a topic of discussion in a social studies class, back in the early 1970s, and "the numbers" were not "adding up," then.I think this totally depended on the social-economic level of the family/recipients, for retired sharecroppers or other folks who had very low incomes (no matter how hard-working) during their working lives, Social Security WAS their retirement income.
For people even slightly up the scale who were able to save some money (it didn't all go just for rent, food, heat, and taxes) they tended to have social security as a supplemental income to their pension from the factory or other job (and many "good" jobs had some sort of pension either from the employer or sometimes the union).
I saw (and filed away) some of the original documentation for Social Security from the 1930s and originally it was "only" for "widows and orphans" but soon expanded.
On paper, it was always supposed to be a "supplemental income" but for many who retired during and just after the Great Depression, it WAS their retirement because they had lost everything and were too old (and often disabled) to earn any extra.
So there was a nice legal fiction that the Congress Critters could "comfort" themselves with that the money didn't really need to be enough to live on because it wasn't intended to be lived on - except it was. Not always very well, but for many then and now, it is what they have and if they are really too old or disabled to work, that IS their reality.
Pretending it isn't "supposed" to be that way won't change things, though it could make a lot more older people end up in much more expensive (to the taxpayer) nursing homes or specialized public housing if the situation is totally ignored.
It will be interesting to see if the bulging Boomer retirement numbers will be able to come together as one, in order to effect positive changes for SS - or not.
intothegoodnight