See slides:
Social Security Can't Pay Promised Benefits.

Worker to Retiree Ratio.

I especially want to concentrate on the following slide:
Total Spending.

The Repubs are rightfully pointing out that in a pay as you go system where the only funds being used to pay SS benefits are the FICA taxes collected in that year, then there is a serious demographic problem ahead.  If you also specifically explain that the SS trust funds are just IOUs for the raiding of these excess FICA funds by previous generations that were too cheap to pay the real going rate for running government for their times and that only through future taxation can this owed money be re-produced, the young people in America can quickly sees how they are in for a future tax Armageddon.  Either that, or the running of this country on pure debt to the tune of 50% of the budget in 2075!  Make no doubt that this longer term view that there is a serious problem in the current SS system when coupled with other future spending demands has a strong appeal to common sense.

Now the question/strategy becomes how best to deal with this Repub approach to scaring young folks with a view that is not false, but could be misleading!  In the comments for this diary, it is my hope that folks will do some real research on this Repub approach, and then write some of their solution thoughts on this.  The following two somewhat exclusionary solution themes come quickly to my mind are:

--Repubs seem to want to give people some of their FICA tax funds back because it seems that government will spend every cent it gets its hands on no matter what it says to get those funds.  This view is not wrong looking at the trust fund debacle.  However, SS is suppose to be an insurance program, not an investment scheme to be won by some and lost by others.  If potential tax money can be given to individuals for their personal investments, then why could not the government just keep such targeted taxes for SS in a true lock box, and invest it themselves (by government experts) for a "guaranteed" higher yield?  Surely the government could figure out successful investments to be shared by all better than caveat emptor for all individuals.  That's not insurance!  Even if some investments did not perform well, we would be no worse off than how it works now where all the money is spent each year!

--The Repubs seem to look at the Bush tax cuts as etched in stone.  The future revenues they project reflect their bias toward low taxes, especially for their rich allies.  If we are going to stay in a pay as you go method, then deal with deficit spending in a sincere manner by raising all sorts of tax revenues or cutting discretionary spending, or changing program benefits or all of these!  Begin this now!

--Finally, and I am the weakest on this one, just live with 50% or higher deficits and massive building national debt, and the heck with it!  What are the drawbacks of this?

IMO, it is important to address in a super clear manner what might be wrong with the budget and SS, why it is happening, and what do we want as a society for a financial safety net.  Listening to Santorum was quite convincing that there is a big problem ahead, and I hope the Dems and others can be as convincing in their counter arguments!