The ESPN punditistas already have the winner of that encounter facing off against the No. 25 San Jose State Spartans (10-2) in the former Motor City (now Little Caesar's) Bowl in Detroit, which in itself would be a compelling matchup.

If you haven't seen Spartan QB David Fales play this year, by all means make an effort to do so, regardless of wherever San Jose ends up this post-season. With all due respect to Texas A&M's freshman phenom Johnny Manziel (who's only going to get better as he gets older), Fales has actually been the better quarterback of the two this season, with the numbers to prove it -- completing 72% of his passes for 31 TDs and 3,798 yards and only 9 INTs, for an overall 170.9 QB rating.

1. Define "entitlements". Justify your definition.
   
2. Do you depend on these "entitlements", personally?
   
3. If the answer to 2 is no, what exactly is it worth for you to ok cuts in these areas?
   

What I do like is it appears SS and Medicaid could be off the table with regard to cuts to beneficiaries (although maybe not with the revenue side). With Obamacare kicking in, the age for Medicare could probably be raised as low income seniors would still be covered for next to nothing and wouldn't be surprised if things move that direction.

Tax hikes for the upper income are a given. It's just a matter if Boehner is able to wrangle a bone and bump the level above $250,000. If it comes to a vote, enough of the GOP will already jump ship at $250,000. They can read the polls more clearly now that the election is over and the skew has come to light.

Moreover, the immediacy for change is not present and those changes that are needed are relatively uncomplicated (e.g. President Obama's campaign comment about removing the cap and/or instituting a "donut hole."  

As for Medicare,  the "reforms" are really, "The end of Medicare as we know it, 2.0"   The Ryan coupon clipper was electorally rejected and the present Medicare plan was affirmed by majorities of voters for both Obama and Romney.  

Importantly, Medicare is now a turnip and it is not possible to draw more blood.  The infamous $716 billion  will be squeezed out of Medicare as a part of ACA, primarily, but not exclusively, by reducing the annual increases to providers. On top of  that, the budget for 2013 cuts spending by $340 billion.

As for means testing, that is already occurring (cf. Premium scale)  Pushing the age of eligibility to 68 years of age, is a lose/lose plan.  The real issue is the increases in health care costs (which has slowed)--which is not necessarily a negative, in that increased costs often relate to new or improved treatments and patient care.  The ACA includes responsible evaluation of changes made and occurring--and these studies should be allowed to continue before more changes are made. Health care is also an important component of our economy, providing stable and middle class jobs.  

Actually, the dreaded sequestration does not include benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.  This false crisis of the cliff is an entitlement masquerade party, hosted by guys like Peter Peterson, the equity fund billionaire.  Medicare 2.0 saves nothing, overall, it just shifts the burden to an already over-burdened middle class.  

We are, in effect, being asked if we would like to get poked in the eye with a sharp stick, or get whacked in the back of a head with a 2 x 4, when, in fact, there's no need to make us choose one form of pain over another.

The solution to the rising costs of health care is not to shift the burden onto the people who can least afford to shoulder them, nor is it to make them wait longer to be eligible for benefits.  For one thing, the more people pay for care, the less they have for other things, which further suppresses demand, and that has predictable ripple effects through the entire economy.  Further, it increases the likelihood of more seniors moving into Medicaid - which will then start the drumbeat of calls to "fix" it, too.  Third, keeping younger, healthier people out of Medicare longer means fewer people paying into the program and fewer people in the risk pool - all that does is ratchet up the cost to individuals and to the government.  When it becomes clear that these "fixes" to Medicare haven't fixed anything, the "only" thing that will appear to be the solution will be to end the program and shift seniors out into the private market.  I don't know about you, but I have a sense that that will be a real "Mission Accomplished" moment for many of the people pushing this entire dishonest argument.

Of all the people and entities involved here, the only ones who ultimately benefit are not those the program was designed to help.

You, ABG, have been the biggest champion of the ACA; given that it's supposed to be fully operational in 2014, don't you think it makes some sense to let it come fully into being in order to see whether it works as designed?  By all accounts, Medicare's costs have already started to come down, so why the rush to make changes?

In case you haven't noticed, we still have unemployment hovering near 8%, and with it looking more and more like there isn't going to be either the will or the courage to appropriate anything near enough to rebuild areas affected by Sandy, I think we are looking at a real economic crisis in that area of the country.  Are the people who allegedly represent us in the Congress and throughout the administration just bored by unemployment?  Is it not sexy enough?

That's the fiscal cliff that should be getting the most attention, not this manufactured garbage that's not fooling anyone.  Let the Bush rates expire, then extend them to those with <$250K in income.  Deal with the sequestration issue that no one in either party wants to see happen.

Further, I would think that by shifting people aged 65 and 66 from Medicare to private insurance, younger people in the labor force are eventually going to see an increase in their own own insurance premiums, because the ACA prohibits insurance carriers from charging older adults more for the same amount of coverage, and people aged 65 and 66 would tend to be the least healthy age demographic in the private risk pool.

So, whatever savings the federal government might immediately realize by raising the age to 67 would eventually be washed away over time by increased Medicaid costs to the states, etc.

I'm already on record as stating my belief that we'll eventually be compelled by circumstances to move to single-payer, so I'd actually prefer that we remove the age limit on Medicare altogether, and let the program compete in the insurance exchanges with the private sector.

It's well known that Medicare has much, much less overhead costs than do private carriers in general, and I think that if we're at all serious about wanting to curb waste, fraud and abuse and thus control costs in the provision of health care (which comprises nearly 20% of our GDP), I daresay that an overwhelming majority of it is to be found in the private sector.

In exchange the administration agreed to make $400 billion in spending cuts to entitlement programs, an aide confirmed. link