What you just pointed out is exactly why conservatives are opposed to social security. If the federal government had let me invest my money instead of taking it to supposedly give me a partial retirement package I would already be retired and living comfortably.

In the past you have railed against Republicans for wanting to do away with social security, but you have just identified exactly why we don't like it.

As long as there is social security the government will take from the young and give a small piece of it to the elderly. Instead the government would insure that almost everyone could retire comfortably by requiring us to invest the 6.5 percent that is currently taken for social security and having the employer continue to pay their 6.5 percent into the program until those who are already on social security are gone.

They could gradually phase out the program and as more elderly die gradually have the employer begin putting their portion of the money into the individuals retirement plan instead of social security.
This might cause some pain for a few of us that are nearing retirement age, but would sure be better for our children, because you are absolutely right social security is a ponzi scheme and always has been.

Did George W. Bush 'borrow' from Social Security to fund the war in Iraq and tax cuts?- Politifact ruling: Mostly False

A Facebook posts says, "Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back."

By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for special purposes.

As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Overall, the claim is misleading and confuses many points. So we rate it Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/t***h-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/03/facebook-posts/did-george-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/

I agree that ....."Thus, Social Security is — and always has been — a t***sfer system from younger generations to older generations."

However, IMHO, the real problem began when the Social Security dollars were made part of the General Fund.

I believe that SS would still be solvent/viable if the monies had stayed separate from the rest of any other gov spending.
I believe this happens, in part, because many people die before ever collecting SS, which helps fund the rest of us in the future.

I'm certainly no expert.....just my opinion.