Other than children, the elderly and those with significant mental or physical handicaps, I struggle to see why anyone else needs any entitlement from the government.
Again, I'm just looking for him to support his claim. I could say 1%, or 90% ... or I could go full Trump and break the laws of mathematics and say, for instance we could cut entitlements by 600%, just like he did with prescription drug prices ... but I wouldn't have any basis for any of those numbers ... so he threw a number out and I just wanted him to support his assertion.
The reason why this is important is cons have a long and storied history of freaking out about things and making mountains out of mole hills in order to get their way. Hell, I remember in the 80s, growing up, when I was a conservative-in-training, we heard all about welfare fraud, and how all these welfare queens were gaming the system and it was going to be the death of America ... then it turned out, while there was, of course, fraud (there is in just about ANYTHING on a large enough scale, private or public), it was WAY overstated by the conservative drama queens. So, it turned out that, rather than eliminate welfare, so as to kill off the rampant fraud, all we needed to do was tighten up the system, to try our best to reduce the small bit of fraud that did exist. Since then, however, that trend has continued, to where we are now subjected to seemingly daily fudging of reality in order to push MAGAt agendas. Immigration numbers, crime numbers, voter fraud numbers, men playing women's sports, porn in schools ... and so on and so on ... all issues or potential issues, but all made absolutely stupidly unbelievable by overdramatic MAGAts.
And, so ... when someone says 50% of those getting entitlements don't need them ... well, prove it.