52% of spending goes to entitlements and Democrats demand more!

[dondc]

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>

[WWV10MHZ]

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!!!!!

[dondc]

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.

[Truman62]

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.

[D2D]

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

[D2D]

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!

[dondc]

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.

[D2D]

Read what you posted!

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

Don't you find that repugnant?

[dondc]

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.

[D2D]

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!

[August West]

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/

[D2D]

According to a far left policy group!

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