No argument here, but before social security was used as the general welfare fund, it was a relatively balanced budget. Of course, it was just an inflation mechanism, the government bought it's own securities (treasuries) as 'investments' for social security.

Similar to how the UAW pension was stuff full of unsecured bonds from GM, and they went crying to the government for a handout after decades of idiot-level decision making.

> No argument here, but before social security was used as the general welfare fund, it was a relatively balanced budget.

Social Security has never been used as the general welfare fund, and it has better budget balance when there wasn't a large demographic bulge in retirement age.

Because, duh.

I guess it depends on how you define 'general welfare fund', but a lot more people draw from Social Security than retirees, usually through disability of some sort.

> but a lot more people draw from Social Security than retirees, usually through disability of some sort.

There are exactly 3 ways to get Social Security: retirement, survivorship, and disability. The first two were part of the original implementation, the last was added in 1956. Whether or not you consider adding disability benefits (which have a separate trust fund) to have transformed SS into a “general welfare” fund, the addition of retirement benefits doesn’t correlate with SS’s troubles, but Boomers reaching advanced age does. The Disability Insurance trust fund is actually projected to be solvent for 31 years longer than the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (2065 vs. 2034), so it's weird to blame it for the problems.