Funding for the IRS to implement the mandates under the ACA.
Funding for the DHS to implement the President’s executive orders on immigration.
The entire Department of Education. Why did education become a federal issue, in the first place?
Long story short. Congress has the power of the purse, and they should use it more responsibly.
But it’s only bad when the Republicans do it, correct? 
No, I don’t do the silly games you do. Some of the deficits are readily attributable to Obama’s policies, others are fallout from a recession that shouldn’t be laid at the feet of any President, and other parts of the deficit are attributable to Bush policies.
Just because you see the world in black and white colors and have no interest in fairly assessing matters, due to an obsession with blaming Democrats for everything, doesn’t mean that I blame Bush for everything.
I often wonder if people on Internet message boards carry out their personal affairs with the same rigid and childish thinking that many display in forums like this. If your boss calls a meeting to discuss declining third quarter sales, do these purveyors of puerile political pablum jump in to say, “IT’S ALL JOHNSON’S FAULT! My sector doesn’t deserve any blame – it’s all that other guy!!!”
Really. What would you say if I disagreed with everything else on the agenda? Be honest, please.
A fair response would be to ask you why, as to each point.
I would say that it would show that you are objecting to pretty much the entire agenda because you oppose pretty much the entire agenda, and not merely because it is this President that proposed those items in it.
Do you actually oppose everything else on the agenda?
Well, yes, of course it’s only bad when the Republicans do it – but only because Republican policies are bad for the country, not because only Pubs are overstepping a constitutional line by obstructing.
Fair enough. Yes, I actually oppose nearly everything on the agenda. Take for example:
I support free trade, but I don’t support giving this or a future President the authority to “fast-track” it on his own.
Oh, I’m against identity theft as well, but that doesn’t mean I think that a new federal law will help anything.
What about “Calls for a “bipartisan infrastructure plan” to upgrade America’s ports, bridges, etc.”?
You slay me.
How much will this save? Any idea? I’d think someone so concerned about the fiscal situation in the country would have some idea about what they are actually going to be saving if their dream cuts came to fruition, right? Do you have the numbers or are you just crossing your fingers and wishing that this will solve the problem you’re so anxious about?
So your big ideas to balance the budget are to continue fighting against the ACA, and Obama’s immigration actions? Well that’s certainly telling, whether it would do any actual fiscal good or not.
As for the Department of Education, it became a federal issue when we decided as a nation that every child born into this country deserves access to a quality free education. Without federal oversight of some fashion, how would this promise possibly be kept? Just trust Alabama to get it right? Hardly. Also, I’d be more willing to discuss scaling back our education infrastructure when the US stops trailing every other western democracy in educational results.
Two reasons. Our infrastructure isn’t as bad as the media would have us believe, and I don’t think we can afford it.
No. This is factually incorrect.
Again, clearly and demonstrably false. Your own cite says the opposite of this.
Stonewalling and denial have a well-known liberal bias.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahem - 1 in 10 Bridges in America in urgent need of repair
That’s 63,000 bridges across the US, most of them part of the interstate highway system. Are you comfortable with driving across these bridges?
Eliminating the ED would save $70 billion, plus an additional $19 billion in ARRA spending on education.
Every state already offers “free” childhood education. I didn’t see the Amendment that repealed that pesky 10th Amendment.
As always, there are two sides to every story.
IRS- trivial. The ACA doesn’t require that much more work on the part of the IRS. Since Republicans have been trying to starve it, the IRS has missed out on chances to gain a lot of money for the treasury by auditing more people. Cutting $5 million in agents and thus forgo $20 million in lost taxes (made up numbers) is silly.
If the president proposes deporting fewer people one would think it would be a net savings for the agency. Unless you think having agents round up people, take them to court, and deport them is cheaper than having them apply for permission to stay.
If Education was eliminated, all of the things that it does would be done by the states. Where is the savings? Who would administer federal student loans?
If one takes the position that as long as there is one dollar of fat in the budget then one cannot consider any revenue increases then I say that position is foolish.
On the tax proposed increases I am a cynic. This deserves close inspection.
I’m betting his definition of the rich will start at about 50,000 per year and run up to about 2,500,000 per year or so. After that they will close the existing loopholes while at the same time create other loop holes so those above that range stay at just where they are.
After all no politician, progressive or conservative, is going to promote tax increases that will hinder their campaign contributions.
Surprise surprise, conservatives have thought up a way to justify not spending money.
Just because there are two sides to every story doesn’t mean both sides are right.
If your family was killed on one of those bridges would you think “well at least we saved some money!”?
Doubtful.
And the rest of my post? Just gonna pretend that doesn’t exist? You listed three things that you claimed would help with the country’s fiscal situation. You are now only defending one of them.
Is that your final answer on what to cut out of the budge then? Just the department of education? That’s your big fix?