Social Security's got to be the bane of every presidential candidate(and President's) existence.
Over twenty five years ago assorted political bodies were "borrowing" money from Social Security as if it were just some general purpose escrow account, not even bothering to consider the coming flood of baby boomer retirements.
If I was going to have to depend on a monthly Social Security check after I retire, I'd be worried: According to those notices "they" send out periodically, "they" don't expect to have any money left after about 2027.
And then, of course, there are the health care issues, hospitalization and meds.
I don't see this as a problem that anyone is going to solve until we get people working and paying into the system, and somebody figures out what significant expenditures we don't need to countenance, transferring saved funds into Social Security to try replacing some of the pilferage of the late 1970s and the 1980s.
It's always going to be a campaign issue that requires "feedback" from each candidate, but because of the complexities involved, I wouldn't factor it in as a primary issue when choosing a candidate; It is a longterm job, and changing administrations mean changing policies rather than a fixed long term project. The economy needs more work, first. A healthier economy(more people paying taxes) could be the spare parts needed to start fixing Social Security.
If the Dems, however, would even make an attempt to get on the same page as GWB, we might make some headway, but like everything else, they favor party politics over the wellbeing of our citizens.

I remenber my Dad cussing Johnson (I think) for lending SS money to Mexico, (i think) & they defaulted on the loan. SS has been in trouble ever since.

One study by William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, predicts that the median age in the United States in 2050 will be 35.4, only a very slight increase from what it is now. In Europe, by contrast, it is expected to rise to 52.3 from 37.7.

Due to the fact that we have a open immigration policy (unlike Europe), we don't have as large of a black cloud looming.

One question, does SS really need revamped? The gov never revamps anything that it actually comes out to be a better plan.

The major problem, Sophia, is sadly enough my generation, the Baby Boomers: Couples were banging out kids like it was going out of style back then, and we're all going to be retiring within the same ten to fifteen year time frame.
Between the money "borrowed"(great loans, not only interest free, but principal free as well) from Social Security, the payouts already going out to more people and the unemployment rate/ recession putting less money in, there is going to be a problem.
If you've ever gotten one of those letters the Social Security Administration sends out(the ones where they tell you how much you earned, year by year, how much you paid into Soc Sec each year and how much your employer{s} paid in, then how much you'll be entitled to if you earn the same as now until 62, 65, etc), you might've noticed that they recommend you start your own retirement fund as they expect to run out of funds or whatever by 2027.
The problem re coming up with a plan to fix this is that one admin from one party will come up with a plan, then when the next party takes over, they'll do away with it and start their own plan, so there's no continuity.
That's why I say it's going to be a rough road toward solving the problem, especially since the Soc Sec issue is used as a political weapon by a certain party, (I won't point any fingers, though they are not the party currently in the White House)who prefer not to solve problems for that reason, and the people who suffer are just pawns to them.

Seth,
I agree with you - in part, and we might all do well to contemplate for a moment or two a salient point that is left unmentioned:

Yes, Baby boomers DID raise a crop of oats, most of them, not wild. "Banging out kids" can't really be considered a bad thing when it comes to the SSS. When you consider what the GenXr's have done in the gene pool however, then those numbers are lookin' pretty grim. Just pushing the stats out, who is goin' to be workin' and payin' SS about the time you're 65? I'm really curious about what's goin' on with the program, cuz I don't plan on bein' a deadguy stat anytime soon, and if the system is broke, so am I!

Dave;

I think the main problem there is that the people we pay the big bucks to address these solutions don't know about the KISS(as Obique mentioned in a military vein on another thread here) principle.
You can watch 'em going at it with their charts and graphs, substituting complicated malarkey for the better idea of just using simple math. I doubt that any such group of "experts" can collectively balance a checkbook.
Also, they always use the same formula: If everything stays exactly as it is now, then by the year xxxx we will have $y,yyy,yyy,yyy.00, and the thing is, there ARE no such constants.
They need to get some people in there who know how to combine common sense with their impressive knowledge of graphs and suchlike, get the politics out of Social Security(fat chance?), hammer out a system that looks like it'll work and APPLY it with an order that cannot be changed from administration to administration. Then they need to apply some fiscal discipline. Put money IN, nothing comes out, for ANY reason, except benefits, and start putting in all the money from the occasional surplus elsewhere until the books look to be balancing better.
This means politicians need to stop "finding" stuff to spend money on just because the money is there(again, fat chance?).
Of course, as I said, they need to stop using Soc Sec as a political weapon. It's too damn important for the survival of too many retired and disabled Americans. Of every issue there is, this one needs, more than any other, to be a bipartisan effort.

Seth,
I can't argue the statstuff - I just make sure the pigs get what they need. The word I'm looking for is ACTUARIAL TABLES, shit, I thought I'd lost it...
Anyway, Income(to the SS system) is based on a working population between the ages of 15 and 64. There is a 'replacement' factor here, whereby the number of people who are drawing benefits, is equal to, or less than, the number of workers feeding the piggybank. Unless that figure is maintained, or taxes are RAISED, the fund is drawn down and is not 'earning' enough to pay the benefits.
The replacement factor, (number of children per woman, since only women can hatch 'em out) is dwindling among the child-rearing population.
This has been very much complicated by the fact that the GenXr women are NOT having babies at the rate anywhere close to the number their mothers (well my mother's generation anyway) had, which is causing a drop in the pool. Some of those 'workers' are being replaced by in-migration populations, and where are those folks coming from? NOT from Europe! And if you think we're bad off, take a look at the numbers in Europe! Bubba hit the nail on the head when he talked about France and their decidely in-migrant population!
Anyway, I'm ranting... All I know is, we ought to be VERY concerned about this system come election time. I'm going to be asking tough questions, and I'm damned sure going to speaking my mind here!