Originally Posted by BFT3K

"On the table" can mean ANYTHING.

For example - let's say a person pays $80,000 into SS throughout their lifetime. Now they are 67 years old, and worth $5 Million dollars.

If a cap is put on them, so they are unable to extract more than the $80,000 they invested, since they can clearly survive easily on their own, is that really a CUT in SS benefits, or a logical way to keep the program solvent for those who really need it?

There are tons of ways to cut waste in social programs, that can actually STRENGTHEN the programs, even if they sound like "cuts" on the surface.