New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reappeared on the national stage on Wednesday when he proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, even though significant changes to the entitlement programs "have long been considered toxic in U.S. politics," Reuters noted.

Christie, who is thought to be considering a White House run in 2016, admitted as much when he made his calls at a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire, where the first-in-the-nation primaries are traditionally held.

"There is no political upside to (the cuts)," the governor noted. "My goal for Social Security and Medicare is to make sure it's there for the people who need it. The system won't survive any other way," he added.

The 52-year-old proposed cutting Social Security benefits for some upper-income seniors, as well as raising the eligibility age over time. He also wants to increase premiums for Medicare, the healthcare program for the elderly, Reuters detailed.

In Christie's audience, not everybody was convinced.

"I hope this country won't solve its problems on the backs of its seniors," Ann Chiampa, 61, of Londonderry, New Hampshire, told the the governor.

But some seniors support the New Jerseyite's efforts: Chris Clifton, 71, also of Londonderry, said that upping the eligibility age of Social Security to 69 may not be a bad idea; he, too, warned of its potential political ramifications, however.

"I think it's going to be a very touchy subject," Clifton admitted.

Forbes columnist Michael Cannon, meanwhile, called Christie's proposal "fairly bold."

He could further "improve his plan and his pitch ... by proposing to change how Congress delivers Medicare benefits," Cannon suggested. "Medicare is so unbelievably inefficient that, done properly, Medicare reform can provide seniors higher-quality care while at the same time saving taxpayers money," he argued.

Among liberal observers, the assessment was not quite as positive, however. Salon's Jim Newell slammed the governor's efforts as a "plutocrats' agenda in populist rhetoric."

"This isn't the first time Republicans have floated this back-door approach to eroding Social Security, but it is still clever, dangerously so," Newell wrote. "It's just as interesting a 'turn of events' that the right would be ostensibly going after the rich," he argued.