Did you actually read what you linked?
First off, they're saying that "Hey, it's not projected to cost as much as we thought previously", and second, there's an actual data table that shows the government expenditures on ACA pretty much steady from 1017-1022 (less than 10% increase over that span). Annual net outlays would be in the range of $150-160 billion. Which is nothing to sneeze at by a long shot, but is still roughly 1/5 the Pentagon's budget.
EDIT: And going back to your last post, you're arguing apples and walruses.
1. ACA would not add $4 trillion to the debt. The CBO report you linked to projects an 11-year
net outlay of $1.252 trillion. That's an outlay. It only becomes debt if Congress refuses to find a way to help pay for it (which at this point, seems to be pretty much a given for most Federal programs).
2. By your own admission, Obama could have pushed to let the Bush tax cuts expire for *everyone* and raised $200 billion in revenue. But he didn't, and in fact allowed the cuts to stand *for everyone*, including the top earners, rather than see taxes go up for the lower and middle classes. Then you follow up with
But raising middle and lower income taxes has always been your party's objective, hasn't it?
If that's their objective, they're really, really bad at it.
3. You cite this larger figure of $1.76 trillion (again, over 11 years) on the ACA but provide no source or link. And seem to insinuate that math itself is partisan.
4. You close with a comment about Obama's budget plan being a failure. The ACA is one piece of the budget, and taxation is one piece of the revenues. You just kinda tossed four diffferent things into the blender and threw the result against the wall to see what'll stick.
Honestly, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling.
As far as balancing the budget, I'm all for it. I'm curious how you feel about the Republicans agreeing to the supercommittee/'automatic penalty' scheme several months ago, and now trying like all hell to wriggle out of it? As you may remember, it was agreed that the budget would be handed over to a 12-member committee from both chambers and both parties, to hammer out a budget with sufficient cuts in all areas that would be acceptable to both parties. It failed utterly.
The agreed-upon "failsafe" position was a pretty draconian, but fair across-the-board reduction in everything. To the tune of $1.2 trillion. Of course, because DoD is such a large portion of the budgetary pie, it's getting a proportionately large bite of the reduction. And now the Republicans are screaming bloody murder and saying "Ok, we agreed to automatic cuts
including defense, but we didn't actually MEAN IT!!"
It's sad. It's like an alcoholic who lets you lock up his hooch in a safe and throw away the key, then proceeds to gets the DTs and is trying to smash the lock. And now is claiming it's "un-American" not to let him renege on his deal and get stinkin' drunk.
Honestly, I think any real budgetary hawk should welcome the automatic cuts. It's about the only way to actually get Congress to enact serious budgetary reform, and it allows them political cover by saying their hands were tied.