If social security benefits get cut by 20% 30 years out how is that different from raising the

[dkf]

Retirement age for younger people? Isn't it kind of the same thing?

Why then are we so determined to not touch the retirement age ever when we know that after the surplus gets spent benefits will probably fall?

[Angry Dragon]

1. ...........

:popcorn:

raise the cap and problem solved .........

[hobbit709]

2. Are you at it again?

[ret5hd]

3. Don't fault a guy for doing his job.

Fault him for doing it poorly.

[hobbit709]

4. LOL!

[dkf]

7. Harry Reid says we don't have to touch social security for 10 years and

After 30 years all that will happen is that benefits will be cut by 20%.

I don't understand the difference between raising the retirement age and cutting benefits by 20% as they are probably one and the same. Can you tell me what the difference is?

[FLSurfer]

5. also will have a similar effect

as raising taxes 20% on the elderly.

[TheKentuckian]

6. You are caught in this concept like a beetle encased in amber.

There is no reason to allow benefits to fall and less to raise the age since such an action would increase the labor pool when there is little reason to expect substantial growth in jobs.