I'm sick of your BS. It's you who is historically challenged. When SS was created it had a very low tax rate and served a tiny percentage of the population. It could possibly have been appropriate under those circumstances, but not under the current ones. And under boomer control the facts of the program changed so that those after them would get nothing. This is hardly a secret - it's been known for decades and the boomers have deliberately and definitely decided to do nothing so that they could be the (final) beneficiaries.
Social security was created at a time when people died at 65. For the most part, men died at 60 and women died at 65. The social security approach was envisioned to care for a widow for a nominal period of 5 years. The number of contributors vs beneficiaries was 23 to 1.
Better nutrition and improved medicine changed the rules. People are living into their 80s. That alone is enough to cause the Ponzi scheme to fail. But that wasn't the end. The politicians decided to expand coverage to disable people who never contributed a dime. Next it was children of veterans. Today we are handing out benefits to illegal immigrants. Much of this occurred well before any boomers had access to political office. Politicians of every stripe are always running out of other people's money to do good deeds (to purchase more votes).
The failure of social security is hardly a baby boomer conspiracy. It is another example of the failure of socialism. We just have the misfortune of having to experience it in real time and work to pay for it. It was a mistake from the beginning.
My grandfather routinely purchased groceries for poor people at his church. He did that until the institution of the federal income tax. At that point he proclaimed that the government has decided to take his money and perform those acts of 'charity'. That was the perspective of a man born in 1887 who lived long enough to see man land on the moon.