Hey Boomers, let's rejoice! The reason our Soc. Security is delayed for two years is

[frazzled]

96. So, if I would say ooga booga

or "it's raining tarantulas," this would provide you occasion to blame Democrats. Did you contact your Congressman in 1993, ten years after the bill was passed, to urge him or her to change the law? Did you do it in 2003 or 2013? Ooga booga.

Look, I don't pretend to understand the very complex mathematical algorithms that project and manage the ever-changing needs of the Social Security system. It's been changed and readjusted hundreds of times since 1935 to account for various things. My soon-to-be 98-year-old father is still collecting Social Security, something he never imagined he'd be doing for so long (even though he waited till 70; and no he was far far from being "well-off": he worked his ass off for as long as he could, even taking a dangerous night job, in order to get the maximum benefit, since he had never earned much money. And on the good side, because he was born in the right slice of time, he's collecting more than others because of some glitchy law that was enacted at some point. Others should be pissed at him.)

But I do know enough to know that everyone in this thread, myself included, is blowing it out of their ass when they make assumptions about these changes and try to connect them to anything under the sun that pops into their pretty little heads.

My comment was simply to inform the OP that, no, all the current things he's railing about have nothing to do really at all with why the full-retirement age was phased in. Because it was written thirty years before the things he thinks are causing this year's delay (which you've known about for 30 years).

But carry on. I'm over 62 and in the middle of work right at the moment. I'm too busy to listen to all this.