Maggie's Farm

"That isn't consistent with socialism or with the history of the Democratic Party, which has fought against Republican attempts to undermine the system for generations."
The only serious plan offered by republicans was the voluntary privatizing of individual accounts and allowing the assets in those privatized accounts being owned by the individual. Which would have dramatically improved the overall solvency of the system and result in the individuals who availed themselves of the opportunity being much better off.
Simply pointing out that social security is a pyramid scheme is not undermining the system. It's telling the truth.
The CBO says the insolvency date is 2033. Statutorily, that results in an imediate cut of over 20% to everyon's benefits.

The actual date of insolvency may be earlier. The GDP growth rate assumptions are likely too optimistic. Further, the benefit is shrinking in real dollars because the official inflation rate understates the actual median COL increase.
All of the "solutions" are band aids that just briefly put off the accounting. We might start means testing the benefit, with ever more stringent standards. We'll likely raise or remove the cap on SS taxable income, but that well isn't nearly as deep as the left thinks it is. Do both of those and there's still a big shortfall that has to be made up out of the general fund or with debt. All those changes will be necessitated by the actions of dems. You can still call it social security, but de facto, it won't be the same program.
I'll add, that since the bulk of the USA's economic and demographic growth are and will almost certainly be located in red states while most of the economic and demographic decline will be in blue states, changing a program in a way that disproportionately costs the more productive part of the country will making it both more expensive and less generous, will be another pressure to split the country.

That would be one of the results. At this point, we don't have any options. All of the possible "solutions" are bad.

"Such a system would not improve the overall solvency of the system." True now. If implemented 18 years ago when Bush proposed it, that would not have been the case Because of the incremental phase in and the claw back of a% of the increased benefits from the privatized accounts. As well as the superior demographics of the country at that time, with the median boomer being in their mid-forties and older Millennials in early adulthood.
"It’s not a pyramid scheme as there is no principal" That isn't what makes a scheme a pyramid scheme. it's the fact that the early contributors reap large pay backs while later contributors are left holding the bag, and the fact that one needs a sustained ratio of contributor to recipient of to keep the scheme going. Both of those traits apply to social security. It is a pyramid scheme.
" it’s an inter-generational transfer program, from young to old." Heh. Worth nothing, the same government that created and runs that pension will lock up the managers of a private pension that is run that way. Because doing so is a pyramid scheme.

This such an unambiguous fact you should be embarrassed to dispute it.
Demographics is economic destiny. Especially when married with the superior geography of red states.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=median+age+by+state&form=ANNTH1&refig=b9989d2e90ab4c3d90a4a3065f5ad60e
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fertility+rate+by+state&form=ANNTH1&refig=4b35cee4fb354ca09d7c4ee59fd86d85
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration#:~:text=U.S.%20states%20by%20net%20domestic%20
https://blog.hireahelper.com/2023-study-corporate-relocation-at-highest-rate-since-2017/
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2022/comm/percent-change-state-population.html
Red states dominate the good end of every one of these lists. Blue states dominate the bad end of every one of the lists. We aren't far from the point where blue states will nearly universally, be leaching off of red states. Hence the forth coming divorice.

You're being intentionally dense. The dow jones average is over 3X now versus 2005. Gains in private accounts over a certain level would have been clawed back into social security to pay the remaining conventional benefits owed. The amount of money privatizing SS would have put in the stock market would have at least doubled the dow jones growth rate to 6X. SS would be flush, only a small portion of the population would have stayed with the conventional program, and beneficiaries would be far better off than they are now.

I'm not going to take investorpedia as the authoritative source for defining pyramid schemes. The term is derived from the literal geometric shade. People at the top get paid by people lower in the pyramid. Exactly like social security beneficiaries do. SS, like all pyramid schemes, is unstainable. Based on non-existent investments.
There were actually economists who pointed out those facts to Roosevelt when SS was created.
But again, why are you picking a fight about subjective definitions of the words "pyramid scheme?" It's like you're using a red herring to dispute the fact that SS is not an economically viable program.