Koolau
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
One that I recall is that they were at one time saying that SS FRA and benefits should not change at all, and I don't agree with that, especially freezing the FRA given changes in longevity. When SS was started, the FRA of 65 was such that benefits were expected to be paid for about 13 years on average, so to age 78. With longevity increases it is now more like 85 (83 for men and 86 for women)... an additional 7 years, but the FRA has only been increased another 2 years (from 65 to 67).
That data would suggest that the FRA should be more like 72 to pay 10 years of benefits. Even if you split the difference to reflect that an increase in the FRA may result in more years of work and more contributions, that would suggest a FRA of 70 but if increasing the FRA from 67 to 70 for people currently in their 30s is proposed then there is a huge hue and cry that SS is being "cut".
It's not being cut, it is being adjusted due to changes in longevity so the program can continue to pay full benefits.
Politicians use the word "cut" when the rate of increase of something is reduced, so it's just the way of the (our) world. Right now, no one has the guts to deal with the issue. They probably won't until it's a crisis that can no longer be avoided.
Eventually, when SS actually begins to "fail" (you know - when there isn't enough to actually pay out the benefits) some politicians will swoop in and "save" SS by (wait for it) changing FRA (and/or other previously "3rd rail" issues.) Then, they will be dubbed as the "heroes" who saved SS. It's just the game and we shouldn't blame the politicians. They just hear "us" scream and then they give us what we want. Our fault - not theirs, but YMMV.