probably too busy getting stoned to do the math... they won't worry about it until they run out of drug money.

LMFAO! ^

It exists. What you don't understand is the way the BCA of 2011 was worded. Expiring tax cuts won't be counted as covering the sequestration cuts unless they were codified. Ie, Congress came back saying we're permanently eliminating them. Otherwise, the cuts will occur and will continue on path for about a decade.

Fiscal cliff really isn't "new" at all. It's been mulled about twice during the debt ceiling debate. And, yes, Medicare is on an unsustainable path. When it gets to a point of eating up nearly half of the total budget, how on earth will we continue with what we're spending now? Or even remotely close? You can double taxes and you will still be running a deficit. Meaning, we need to start making those tough choices now and stop kicking the can.

Objectively wrong, trumper. ACA prevents that increase from happening. Also, the "debt ceiling" debate was yet another example of bizarrely stupid Republican posturing.. it's not shocking [nor is it at all relevant] that more lies were mentioned during the entirely pointless exercise that resulted in nothing but a higher interest rate.

If "the future" was in fact such a problem, Republicans would have voted for tax increases much more easily. When Republicans vote for tax increases, I'll bother responding to your unfounded hysteria regarding Medicare, which has as much validity as Paul Ryan's budget assumptions. What are you going to bring out next, the "accuracy" of pete peterson?

All mentions of the fiscal cliff are nothing but attempts to stop social security and medicare.

[quote poster=Unsympathetic; 20879; 386867]Objectively wrong, trumper. ACA prevents that increase from happening. Also, the "debt ceiling" debate was yet another example of bizarrely stupid Republican posturing.. it's not shocking [nor is it at all relevant] that more lies were mentioned during the entirely pointless exercise that resulted in nothing but a higher interest rate.

If "the future" was in fact such a problem, Republicans would have voted for tax increases much more easily. When Republicans vote for tax increases, I'll bother responding to your unfounded hysteria regarding Medicare, which has as much validity as Paul Ryan's budget assumptions. What are you going to bring out next, the "accuracy" of pete peterson?

All mentions of the fiscal cliff are nothing but attempts to stop social security and medicare. [/quote]

Do you mean the BCA? The ACA is shorthand for the Patient, Protection and Affordable Care Act. The BCA is shorthand for the Budget Control Act. They are two very different things.

Again, the fiscal cliff is real unless changed by codification. You can argue the new Congress could repeal it, but again, has to succomb to the codification process.

A point of reference for reading CBO and other scorers charts, it's important to study the underlying presumptions. Most deficit-scoring presumes sunsets occur, that government employees receive COLAs and merit increases, and a level of economic stability on pay with historical averages.

Haha, unfounded histeria. You're disagreeing with both major parties and their candidates about the fiscal cliff/BCA.

And yes, Paul Ryan's budget certainly followed assumptions too, several of which are untested (premium support model, etc). However, it is a possible solution. The notion of premium support models really didn't begin with Ryan, it began with Rivlin if you want to be accurate. Wyden worked on a hybrid version of it with Ryan because he thinks Medicare is doomed if nothing changes. Is he hysterical?