The protestors might have a legitimate beef if they were complaining about the truth of their youthful situation, from Caroline Baum of Bloomberg’s View:

   Talk about haves and have-nots. The debt burden that the
younger generation is staring at almost guarantees it will have
a reduced standard of living. After all, if more dollars are
directed at keeping Granny alive until age 102, that means fewer
dollars for productivity-enhancing investments.
    This idea clearly hasn’t resonated with today’s youth.
    Maybe that’s because the numbers — tens of trillions of
dollars in unfunded Social Security liabilities, for example —
are hard to fathom. It’s much easier to vent their anger at bank
bailouts and preferential treatment for corporate interests,
much of which is justified. They seem to be ignoring Capitol
Hill, where the rules are made by our bought-and-paid-for

Not much to add here, except as Baum observes, I might join them if they properly identified the real threat to their well-being.  I’m forty-eight, the tail end of the boomer generation (though I think including people born in the sixties is a bit expansive so far as defining the generation is concerned).  I have no inkling of doubt that there won’t be any social security left after the boomers ahead of me have drunk their fill.  But truthfully, keeping granny alive ’til she’s 102 is the real fiscal insanity.  Who wouldn’t want granny to live ’til she’s 102 if everyone else but her family foots the bill for her continued existence?