Ryan once benefitted from Social Security, now wants to eliminate it for others

[Politico]

Romney/Ryan are committed to maintaining the permanent solvency of Social Security. Social Security cuts are off the table. Nothing will ever change for those retired, nearing retirement or on disability. Social Security is a commitment that cannot be broken. With that said, the retirement age will eventually need to be raised for those who are young today. The obvious reason is that being 65 in 2052 will be very different from being 65 in 1952. But absolutely nothing changes for those who are retired or nearing retirement.

In contrast, Obama/Biden have no interest in maintaining the permanent solvency of Social Security. Their plan is to simply kick the can down the road, and let future presidents and generations worry about it. All they have to offer is negative ads and lies because all they care about is winning the next election.

[Politico]

Social Security cuts are off the table.

... the retirement age will eventually need to be raised

Erm... raising the retirement age is cutting Social Security.  You really need to step away from the talking points Kool-aid.

Obviously Social Security cuts for those retired or nearing retirement are off the table. As I mentioned, being 65 in 2052 is very different from being 65 in 1952. The obvious economic reality is that the retirement age will need to be raised for future generations, people who are younger than 20 today almost certainly, due to the fact people are living much longer than they did when SS started 80 years ago. That raise will not happen for years, though.

[Politico]

Social Security cuts are off the table.

... the retirement age will eventually need to be raised

Erm... raising the retirement age is cutting Social Security.  You really need to step away from the talking points Kool-aid.

Obviously Social Security cuts for those retired or nearing retirement are off the table. As I mentioned, being 65 in 2052 is very different from being 65 in 1952. The obvious economic reality is that the retirement age will need to be raised for future generations, people who are younger than 20 today almost certainly, due to the fact people are living much longer than they did when SS started 80 years ago. That raise will not happen for years, though.

How so? Aren't Republicans opposed to biotechnological research that could slow the aging process down?

Do I really need to explain how being 65 in the year 2052 is going to be quite different from those who were 65 in the year 1952?