Are you overly challenged by this? "Technically" is relative to the fact that it is questionable as to whether tax cuts need to be "paid for". Do they actually cost money? When these cuts were put in place in 2003 federal revenues went up. So tell me, did they cost any money then? You could say that, with the amount of aggregate taxable revenue we had, had we kept higher rates we would have brought in X amount more revenue. But you'd be a fool to say that because of the causal relatonship between the tax cuts and the amount of aggregate taxable revenue. (Though I must admit, causal relationships to seem Greek to many people in our government, seemingly intelligent people)
So, if you think that extending the Bush tax cuts requires us to either "have the money" or make offsetting spending cuts, clearly we do not "have the money". And that's for all of the cuts, not just the $700 billion for the so called rich. To say that we only cannot afford to extend the tax cuts for the rich is to imply that somehow we can afford the $3 trillion to extend the cuts for the non-rich. That's a bit oxymoronic. at best.