Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

[candide]

8 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-costs-us-billions-biden-administration-policy-impact-taxpayer-burden/1866555

$150.7 billion is a lot of money.  NYC and the state of California alone, have spent $22 billion.

Oooops! Sorry, I initially misunderstood your question.

 

However the thread is about the federal budget.

I looked further and found that “The federal government spent over $66 billion on illegal immigrants in 2023." (From the same committee)

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/the-cost-of-the-border-crisis-1507-billion-and-counting

 

So let's assume illegal immigration is reduced by 2/3, it's an spending cut of about $44 billion. However, there must also be a cost of preventing illegal immigration but I have no information about it.

[Hawaiian]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Oooops! Sorry, I initially misunderstood your question.

 

However the thread is about the federal budget.

I looked further and found that “The federal government spent over $66 billion on illegal immigrants in 2023." (From the same committee)

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/the-cost-of-the-border-crisis-1507-billion-and-counting

 

So let's assume illegal immigration is reduced by 2/3, it's an spending cut of about $44 billion. However, there must also be a cost of preventing illegal immigration but I have no information about it.

NYC received $107 million from the feds.  Not sure about California.  In my research, I found some figures are not available for various reasons.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

NYC received $107 million from the feds.  Not sure about California.  In my research, I found some figures are not available for various reasons.

The quote I posted is from a GOP Committee member. I doubt she would have under-estimated the federal expenses involved. 

[impulse]

46 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Not widely known is deportations are already underway.

 

While that is true, a lot of us think that was an election year ploy that would have been reversed the day after the election had it gone the other way. 

 

They just saw how bad that issue was polling.

 

[impulse]

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hoover Institution -- right wing think tank.

 

Part of Stanford University.  Which is neither here nor there, unless you can point to anything he has said in error, or as deliberate misinformation.

 

I occasionally disagree with his analysis, but I haven't yet found any of his statistics to be in error.  He is extremely well researched, probably backed up by a ton of Stanford interns and flunkies.

 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Part of Stanford University.  Which is neither here nor there, unless you can point to anything he has said in error, or as deliberate misinformation.

 

I occasionally disagree with his analysis, but I haven't yet found any of his statistics to be in error.  He is extremely well researched, probably backed up by a ton of Stanford interns and flunkies.

 

I call B.S.

His views do not represent the views of Stanford.

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I call B.S.

His views do not represent the views of Stanford.

 

Once again, attacking the bearer because you can't disprove the message.

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I call B.S.

His views do not represent the views of Stanford.

Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.

 

Despite the difficult start, he went on to receive degrees in economics from Harvard University, Columbia University, and the University of Chicago. For more than thirty years now, Sowell has been applying the principles of economics to a range of intellectual disciplines, including history, politics, and education.

 

Pretty solid credentials. Wouldn't you say?

[Jingthing]

46 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Once again, attacking the bearer because you can't disprove the message.

 

 

My impression is that maga type white nationalists love him because he's a token black intellection who appears to support their feeling that they have no responsibility for institutional racism because after all this famous black guy says it doesn't exist.

How convenient.

A Critique of Thomas Sowell. There is something of an obsession… | by Tristan Graham | Medium

Quote

Sowell’s arguments are, in the main, sophomoric in construction and ideologically resistant to intervention from the real world. Despite his bluster about Evidence and Facts that purportedly come to knock down the house of left economic and racial ideas, Sowell is unique even among the conservatives he’s usually cited with for his immunity to real knowledge and his social-scientific sophistry.

 

[Jingthing]

57 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.

 

Despite the difficult start, he went on to receive degrees in economics from Harvard University, Columbia University, and the University of Chicago. For more than thirty years now, Sowell has been applying the principles of economics to a range of intellectual disciplines, including history, politics, and education.

 

Pretty solid credentials. Wouldn't you say?

Again Hoover is at Stanford. The views of Hoover are the views of Hoover. You will not find one document from Stanford saying that Hoover's views are their views. 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Again Hoover is at Stanford. The views of Hoover are the views of Hoover. You will not find one document from Stanford saying that Hoover's views are their views. 

Smart is smart. I for one think TS is super intelligent and has intelligent thoughts.

[AgMech Cowboy]

What???  You guys like paying exurbanite taxes?  The government is absolute the worst place to spend your money.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

What???  You guys like paying exurbanite taxes?  The government is absolute the worst place to spend your money.

Are you a billionaire?

[TedG]

On 1/12/2025 at 10:39 PM, simple1 said:

 

No idea I don't have access to the stats, but don't you believe people earning a reasonably high income can have a hold on additional tax cuts to support the less well off?. I'm sure you're well aware the wealthiest country is the world, USA, in the only G20 country without Universal Health Care - a somewhat ridiculous ideological position.

Maybe that the reason the USA blows the doors off the rest of the G20.

[TedG]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Are you a billionaire?

That’s a stupid response. 

[TedG]

On 1/12/2025 at 8:44 PM, stevenl said:

 

Not the same 'fact' you claimed earlier.

What?

[TedG]

On 1/13/2025 at 6:07 AM, Peabody said:

Let's talk military budget.

ok

[BusyB]

On 1/12/2025 at 9:19 AM, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

 

Surprise surprise!

 

Or maybe not ...

[uncletiger]

10 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Personally I am an advocate of setting a minimum level of income to survive which everyone gets to earn tax free.  Over that then a flat tax as you mention.  It means poor people aren't taxed until they emerge to middle class then they become payers and should recognize the value of controlled government spending.

Almost, but it should be a consumption tax instead of an income tax. Everyone's allowed a minimum level of consumption per year tax free. After that, you pay on every item purchased. Billionaires don't "earn" anything. They get non taxable loans against their stock portfolios. Consumption taxes remove any incentive to play games with earnings, and even criminals have to buy things. It also simultaneously incentivizes people to make and do things for themselves rather than buying it. Honestly if a billionaire wants to live the same life as a pauper then there's no reason to tax them differently.  But the instant he tries to cash in on it, he has to pay for the luxury.

[mogandave]

How is it the people thzt collect welfare are “less fortunate” than the people that work?

[jimmybcool]

5 hours ago, uncletiger said:

Almost, but it should be a consumption tax instead of an income tax. Everyone's allowed a minimum level of consumption per year tax free. After that, you pay on every item purchased. Billionaires don't "earn" anything. They get non taxable loans against their stock portfolios. Consumption taxes remove any incentive to play games with earnings, and even criminals have to buy things. It also simultaneously incentivizes people to make and do things for themselves rather than buying it. Honestly if a billionaire wants to live the same life as a pauper then there's no reason to tax them differently.  But the instant he tries to cash in on it, he has to pay for the luxury.

 

Are you talking about a national sales tax replacing income tax?  If so I'm game except I don't trust the bastards to start it and then ADD income taxes back.  LOL

[SiSePuede419]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Sowell is unique even among the conservatives he’s usually cited with for his immunity to real knowledge

Not unique!

Two words: Clarence Thomas. 😋