I think that we need to refraim this issue. Here is a much nicer way of looking at it.
Many allude to a resentment of older people, who have not saved for their own retirement, as being a "burden" on the working class. I know that there is not any wilderness available anymore for someone to go start over in, but if you could imagine being able to go out in a forest in Canada and start over, without the "burden" of having to pay social security to buy the infrastructure of America; would you really be better off. Maybe after felling trees for a cabin and clearing land to till the soil to plant crops, maybe, in a few generations of hard work in primitive conditions you might be able to produce something for export to trade for a generator. You certainly would still not be able to produce anything like that for yourself, much less internet and modern healthcare.
Social security is not charity, it is a great deal if you consider that it is purchasing the infrastructure of our nation from those that built it. It is the same as letting gramma and grampa Walton continue to live in the house and eat at the table even when they can no longer work, out of appreciation for passing along to you the house that they built. You could go build your own house, but you wouldn't be better off. You could kick them out and keep the house, but that wouldn't be right. Paying social security is something that I am grateful to be able to do and I want to improve the infrastructure of America, just like every previous generation has, so that I can be proud of what I pass along to my next generation. I don't think that those who would kick gramma and grampa out of the house and trash the place represent the best of America. There is no legitimate question of whether or not we can afford it, it is the first bill that we MUST pay, and then decide what else we can afford.