(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2kf2fd345bc0.png) 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/14/in-1-chart-how-your-taxes-are-spent

Including income security entitlements the percentage goes up to 68% of the Federal budget with just 32% being non-entitlements!

Nice little chart!  I seems to leave out the fact that most of the part you call entitlements comes  from
FICA.  Not income tax.

Social Security and Medicare is not an "entitlement".

Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs and have their own separate funds that are not part of the budget.

Medicaid is part of the federal budget.

Obamacare is nowhere in the federal budget.


you are such a fool for the deceitful Heritage Foundation writer, who assumes you are ignorant.  and you are.

 Actually, it is!



IOUs are not are not separate funds and all Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid funds are part of the general fund!



Actually it is as all funds come from the general fund!

What would you say if more than half of a company's funding was labeled as off budget!

You can bet people would go to jail if they dared to do say that!



Again, defrauding the tax payer and cheating all Americans!




You are the one endorsing deceits like "off budget items!"  If the government spends money on something or some program it is in the budget!

Only truly dishonest people claim there is such a thing as "off budget items!"

AND as we have proven, time and time again, MOST of that goes to Republican States!

Yes, you GOPpers are the entitlement HOGS of America.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

FICA goes into the general fund.  Any surplus, not used for SS, Medicare, AFDC etc, is put into interest bearing government bonds.  Has bee since the SS law was written in 1934.  For many years it was a big part of the National Debt. 

Thanks for confirming what I said!

Actually I've said it here many times, in the past.
I've replied to the e mail blaming Presidents for doing this and that and other things to the "SS Fund", many times in the past, both the Democrat and the Republican versions.
Mean while most of the 52%, that is labeled "entitlement" isn't paid for by the rich.  Many of the very richest don't pay FICA at all.  No one pays it over the first one or two thousand dollars of the income.  I don't know what it is today and don't have the time to look it up.

I once posted here that the dumbest thing Obama did was give wage earners a Holiday on paying FICA.

Government has spend ever dime in the Social Security fund and cannot pay back what it spent without draconian economy breaking taxes!

Still believe in voodoo economics..

Clearly you do!

You cannot spend what doesn't exist!

Actually it isn't a huge problem, if big tax cuts pump up the economy because it income will grow. 
That hasn't happened with the Reagan, GW Bush, and Trump..
Trump and some of his diehard supporters are speaking of cutting those entitlements.  Because cut snd spend hasn't worked in the past.  This time they want to cut the benefits people that don't have their surplus income.
They socialize the losses and privatize the profits..  Killing a few people while at it.

Only thing growing fast is the national debt.  But then that is a problem now that Obama is no longer the President.  <sarcasm>

A lot of the money (too much) goes to illegal criminal aliens who shouldn't even BE here in the first place which rightfully
    should be going to needy and deserving AMERICANS!!!!!

Illegals that work often pay FICA, they can't collect it or or go on welfare.  Where are they collecting this money.
Their illegal employers often pay them under the table, or collect FICA and Income tax, and pocket it, with out turning a W2 wages form to the government.
I don't hire them or cheat them, but their being afraid to complain or go to the police makes them ideal victims.
People seeking asylum are not illegals. They have a right to do that nd be protected until a court of law rules on their individual case.

Which has nothing to do with 52% entitlements.

I guess we need to start cutting the money going to greedy, slurping Republican states, because as this article
(so timely too) points out, the biggest users of entitlements ARE Republican states!

As gomer Pyle would say, "Su-prize, su-prize, su-prize!"

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/states-dependent-federal-government-180735773.html

States that voted Democrat in 2016 generally rely less on federal funding than Republican states, according to a study by WalletHub.

The analysis looked at the return on taxes paid to the federal government, the share of federal jobs, and federal funding as a share of state revenue.

Thirteen out of the top 15 states found to be most dependent on the federal government voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential
election. Ten out of the 15 least dependent states voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

This report is a companion to a recent report published by the Center for Immigration Studies looking at welfare use by all immigrant households, based on
Census Bureau data. This report separates legal and illegal immigrant households and estimates welfare use using the same Census Bureau data as that study.
This analysis shows that legal immigrant households make extensive use of most welfare programs, while illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food
programs and Medicaid through their U.S.-born children. Low levels of education — not legal status — is the main reason immigrant welfare use is high.

Among the findings:

•    An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.

•    Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent),

    and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.[/list]

•    Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.

•    Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.

•    The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates

    that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.[/list]

•    Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to

    only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced.
    Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.[/list]
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Households (https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Households)

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings
from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers
and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal
balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.
Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children.
If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.1

Among the findings:

    There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
    There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
    A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them
    with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2

    The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants,
    the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.

    If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
    Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully
    without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade.
    If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.

    If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly
    $64 billion — several times the wall's cost.

Important Caveats and Observations About These Estimates

    In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.
    A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.
    To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the
    effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future. The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics
    relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes
    if the NPV concept is not used.4

For more go to CIS (http://cis.org/The-Cost-of-a-Border-Wall-vs-the-Cost-of-Illegal-Immigration/)!

The title of the Article gaslighted you some.
Illegal house holds often have people living in them that are eligible for Wives, children etc that are American.
The wall will cause more to remain here year around.
The 2020 censes will show fewer "illegal households" because they won't be reported. Or there will be more lying.  Example in 2010 there were more people claiming to be Vietnam veterans than served in Vietnam.  They did go hunt them down and clarify that, or put any one in jail.
The Censes just wasn't as accurate as it could have been.

Read what you posted!

Illegals are profiting off of innocent children born in the USA!

Don't you find that repugnant?

No. 
You find helping children repugnant.  Be then cutting Children assess to health care, education, clean water, clean air and food doesn't seem to bother you much either.

Once again if there were illegal employers there wouldn't be near as many "Illegals", The people I know that employ them are mostly Republicans, including Trump.

Wow!

You really do have skewed priorities!

Your hyperbolic response is sad!

No one said they wanted to cut off any American child's access to "health care, education, clean water, clean air and food!"

Democrat's policies will ensure Americans get less "health care, education, clean water, clean air and food"
as what exists will be extended to illegals resulting in less for Americans!

Prove those who employ illegals are mostly Republicans!

Sorry to kill your thread dd but it`s the GOP`s base that gets the bulk of the benefits.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

According to a far left policy group!

A group with no facts to back up their spurious claims!

"Illegals are profiting off of innocent children born in the USA!

Don't you find that repugnant?"


I answered you question.


You support a guy that dose.  Killing Obama care, killing the EPA, not supporting SNAP.


My experience where there were lots of "illegals", I knew vineyard owners that had housing for the illegals that came to pick grapes every year.  Rabid Republican.
Which big hotel chain do you know of that isn't a Republican.  The all hire illegals.
Trump hires them: http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/22/donald-trump-tells-immigrant-advocates-youve-convinced-me/

You seldom use actual fact to back.  I still chuckle when I see that "fact" that over 10000 lives are saved every day.

 Child killing Obamacare increases freedom and the majority of states voted to kill Obamacare!

Who is killing the EPA?

The President has instructed the EPA to end abuses of Americans!

Why do you think ending abuse is bad?

Who is not supporting SNAP?

Rumor and innuendo are not facts!

Well that is a lie as I always link to my sources!

Provide a quote and link to me saying 10000 lives are saved every day!

He is not ending abuse he, is allowing people such as the Kochs to dump coal waste into  rivers, burn more coal etc.  Even if there is no human contribution to GW, coal has a lot of other bad stuff in it, most of the oceans mercury comes from coal.
That is why you shouldn't eat fish from the Atlantic, that high on the food chain more than twice a month, expecting women never. I needed not mention lead, arctic, and a few other thing from coal.
The CO2 is making huge dead zones in the oceans, CO2 plus H2O makes carbonic acid.  Crabs, clams and other things don't develop shells.
Rolling back CAFE standards, attacking California for setting its own auto emission standards.

No rumors and innuendos are not facts.  Why do you use them so much. 
Many of you sources are just that or worse.
 

So, according to you the USA is the only nation that could possibly be "polluting" the oceans with CO₂ which isn't a pollutant!

CO₂ promotes plant growth which most fish and animals need to survive!

You simply are not making sense!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2k9d7a366183.png)

Where did I say that we were the only nation polluting.  They do it so we can do it...
I sure don't like China burning it either.  I don't want us selling it to them to burn either.
I pointed out what coal can do. 
Koch brother didn't spend most of a billion dollars getting Republicans elected so they could which to solar or natural gas.  Natural gas is cheaper than coal, and puts a quarter of the CO2 and some water into the air.
CO2 is essential to plant growth, but they only so much.  They have gone through millions of years finding that balance.  The acidic patches in the seas kill off off plants swell.  They don't call them dead zones for nothing.  We're getting more and more plants that are toxic themselves or when they die.
There is plenty of CO2 in the air as it is, fewer plants converting it to carbon and oxygen too.

Even China is trying to reduce their coal burning.  Not because of any concern for their people, but because their air is so polluted it is bad for their image.

Yes because you're into alternate reality too much.

When the rest of the world catches up with our environmental protections then I will consider greater regulation but not until then!

Without people CO2 would go below life sustaining levels!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2k74dab2e274.png)

You still haven't provided a quote and link to me saying 10000 lives are saved every day!

Law abiding gun owners save a minimum of 392,500 lives annually!

Proving guns are not a public health problem but a contributor to good public health!

An average minimum of 1075 lives are saved by law abiding gun owners every day!

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times –
      more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.₂₄₃ Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively
      stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

_{243 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc[/COLOR]]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc} (http://[COLOR=#000000)

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about
300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative[/COLOR]]http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative (http://[COLOR=#000000)
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#g24a[/COLOR]]http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#g24a (http://[COLOR=#000000)[/FONT][/SUB]

I lied it was 1075 a day.....you've used this piece of crap for a couple of years now.  If you really believe it explains a lot.

America cannot clean up the rest of the world's pollution!

Why don't you know that?

They are jumping off a bridge, so you want to too.

So, you think they won't take us with them when they jump off that metaphorical bridge?

Then you don't believe MMCC (Man Made Climate Change) is real?

You poor reading is showing again.
I said it didn't matter if MMCC was real or not.  Coal is dirty in other ways.

I thought you might understand the metaphor?
Seems you still think they do it so why can't we, is a good argument.

Actually you did say that when you said other nations could pollute and not affect us!
If continuing to pollute equates to jumping off a bridge and you believe in MMCC then that means they will take us with them!

Are you willing to go to war with polluting nations to stop MMCC?

Lord!  Said what?
I also said that I didn't want to be shipping coal to China, which is some thing we can do about other nations polluting.

Refusing to sell coal to China would only result in China buying it from other sources!

Why do you hate American workers so much as to plunge them into poverty?

Dems want invaders crashing across our southern Border so they can be made into Dem voters and for no other reason.

These invaders will soak up all the entitlements they possibly can and our social safety net will go bankrupt.

Sorry D2D, I don't hate any one.
Coalminers are in poverty even when they are mining, they also die young suffer breathing problems while doing it. 
Much of that coal waste is going to be dumper into their rivers.

That proves you know nothing!

Coal miners are very well paid when they can get the work!

Democrats being the coal banners they are seek to put those well paid people on the unemployment lines!

"Dems" want no such thing! 
I want all humans treated humanly.
I don't want children separated from the parents, and some even lost altogether. 
When you seek asylum you are have to ask American officials for protection, you are not illegal.
It sure makes it easier to not treat them humanity if you do a little dehumanizing first.  Brands them, as criminals and rapist, thieves.  When in fact illegals have a lower crime rate than any group except Asians.  Worked for Hitler!

Non citizens can't legally vote.
Voter fraud exists mostly in gerrymandering, and preventing valid voters from voting even honest Republicans are agains that.
The very few cases of voter fraud that are found and procured convict as many Republicans as "Del"

I saw one case hyped recently, never saw whom he actually voted for.  Are you hiding cameras in voting booths?

Not true, Democrats are willing to sacrifice any number of Americans in their war against their fictitious boogeyman known as MMCC!

Americans who are criminals are separated from their children, why are illegals more important than Americans?

True illegals cannot vote but do using stolen IDs!

Nope Voter fraud is enshrined in the Democrat Party particularly in California which has taken massive steps to make vote fraud easier!

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

Actually illegals have a much higher crime rate than Americans or any other group!

How is it dehumanizing to enforce the law as written?

Why is keeping illegals out dehumanizing?

You ever been in Appalachia?
Not well enough paid for the work they do, the risks they take and the injuries they suffer.
Most of the working or not working are companies busting Unions.  I remember when John L Lewis was one powerful man.  You hear much about coal miners union today.
Coal was losing out because of cheaper cleaner natural gas, with out the even cheaper wind and solar power completion.
The coal that the Koch wanted to ship to China, came from Wyoming, 41% of the national out put..  Mostly open pit mines. 

What do you think this is?

The 1800s?

I did not change the subject, some one that thinks he/she knows what "Dem" want did.
Now you are doing it again "Democrats are willing etc.
I hope you're not going to tell me millions voted next.

We have more people locked up than any other nation.  Most are poor.  It would be cheaper to educate them, and feed them that locking them up.
But  once again you are diverting.
We are the richest nation in the world and have a higher poverty rate than any non third world nation.

I just moved to California.  Went in to get a drivers license and registration to vote.  They wanted ,  my birth certificate, or Pass Port (I showed them both.) I wanted a Veteran's enhancement so had to provide my DD 214 & Honorable Discharge.
They still had the records of my original DL and issued me the same number I first received in 1955.
Only voter fraud I know of in California was Republican voter fraud.  It was throwing away voter registration cards that designated other than GOP on them.  Once a card is singed it is the property of the County voter regressor. 

Question makes no sense to me. 
 I have family in West Virginia.  Been there.  My relatives run small business, teach school or move away.  They wouldn't work in mines no matter the pay.

PS:  I said no matter what you think about MMGW, coal is dirty unhealthy stuff.
Trump is now allowing the Koch dump it into rivers and lakes.

Sure he is!

Prove President Trump OKed Koch dumping coal in rivers and prove Koch is dumping coal in rivers!

https://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule

https://www.cleanwateraction.org/campaign/cleaning-coal-ash-and-power-plant-pollution

Some thing even George Bush was trying to get done. 
The Koch spent a great deal of dark money supporting Trump.

What do you love dirty unsafe water and dirty air? 

Wow, two supremely biased sources!

Vox pretends to be capable of reading the minds of others despite having no evidence!

It is opinion without foundation!

Clean water funds itself by pushing unreasoning hysteria!