Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This really baffles me. We have loads and loads of rich liberals including Warren Buffett, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Emma Stone, Patricia Arquette, Meryl Streep etc. etc. etc.
Why don't they just pool their money together and create a fund to pay for all their liberal ideas such as health care, refugees, illegal immigrants, equal pay etc. etc. etc.?
Wouldn't that solve more problems than all the bickering?
You want Meryl Streep to fund your health care? That's the right for you. Always looking for handouts and figuring out the next scam. Why don't you send an e-mail to Ivanka Trump and ask her to pay your doctor's bills?
This really baffles me. We have loads and loads of rich liberals including Warren Buffett, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Emma Stone, Patricia Arquette, Meryl Streep etc. etc. etc.
Why don't they just pool their money together and create a fund to pay for all their liberal ideas such as health care, refugees, illegal immigrants, equal pay etc. etc. etc.?
Wouldn't that solve more problems than all the bickering?
I agree with you but you're picking on some of the wrong liberals. Buffett's a great guy and will be giving away most of his billions upon his death, Gates will be doing the same thing. Buffett and Gates actually built businesses, but have a conscience and are smart.
Your point really applies to people like: Rosie O'Donnell. Madonna (let's blow up the white house). Bruce Springsteen. Brad Pitt. Angelina Jolie. Etc.
Really, this applies to everyone who believes in taxation, just to different degrees. People on the left tend to think more government programs are necessary, conservatives think less government programs are necessary, libertarians (minarchist libertarians) believe only a few government programs are necessary, but they all advocate that something be funded through collectivist schemes.
Just reminded me of when I talk to conservatives or even libertarians, and they say they support minimal government, but literally EVERYONE thinks they support the minimum amount of government necessary. Nobody is like "I support this unnecessary program." When they argue against us anarchist libertarians, they're taking on the same role as the liberals they complain about.
I rarely point that out because I prefer finding common ground, but it's technically true.
The issue, as has been stated numerous times, is these red states say they are for less government, but the residents rush to take the government money and benefits. If they truly believe they are for less government, less blue states create their own programs and restrict the programs to their own states. Red states should have no issue with that because they are for less government. They don't want or need those programs. They should not have any issue with wanting to participate in blue state programs that they don't qualify for or pay for.
The issue, as has been stated numerous times, is these red states say they are for less government, but the residents rush to take the government money and benefits. If they truly believe they are for less government, less blue states create their own programs and restrict the programs to their own states. Red states should have no issue with that because they are for less government. They don't want or need those programs. They should not have any issue with wanting to participate in blue state programs that they don't qualify for or pay for.
Let blue states create programs that benefit blue state voters and let blue states restrict those benefits to blue states
Blue states like Washington wants to allow in tons of illegals/refugees and turn it into a sanctuary place. You wouldn't mind paying billions of dollars for their government benefits but if it goes to people in red states, you're outraged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
blue states should have the ability to create very lengthy residency requirements so they aren't paying for red state refugees.
While we're at it, we should make illegals/refugees comply with the residency requirements.
Blue states like Washington wants to allow in tons of illegals/refugees and turn it into a sanctuary place. You wouldn't mind paying billions of dollars for their government benefits but if it goes to people in red states, you're outraged?
While we're at it, we should make illegals/refugees comply with the residency requirements.
Yes, I do care if benefits blue states pay for go to red states. Yes. And if red states are as anti-government programs as the say they are, they should be completely fine with not taking our money. We're adjacent to Canada so illegals are not exactly a huge deal. That wall down in Texas? We don't care about it.
Everything you just posted is pure, baseless propaganda.
Democrats do not support open borders. They support secure borders with a path to citizenship for illegals who've been in the country for years without committing crimes.
The Senate comprehensive Immigration Reform bill of 2013 was passed by a vote of 68-32. Every democrat voted for it. It had the most stringent border security ever proposed by the federal government. It also had a path for citizenship for those living here for years, illegally.
Your story line sounds good but it's not reality. Democrats openly support sanctuary cities and the concept endorses keeping all illegal in the country. That may not be the purpose of the democrat support but is the reality of supporting the illegal actions of sanitary cities that cut off the communication between federal border patrol.
San Francisco made no effort to get rid of the scumbag that remained in their city to continue murdering innocent residents.
Openly supporting an illegal action, despite trying to spin it as " mostly good intentioned" doesn't work with informed Americans. No one is falling for the double speak democrats are trying to spin on their support and riots that support sanctuary cities. Shameless.
Your story line sounds good but it's not reality. Democrats openly support sanctuary cities and the concept endorses keeping all illegal in the country. That may not be the purpose of the democrat support but is the reality of supporting the illegal actions of sanitary cities that cut off the communication between federal border patrol.
San Francisco made no effort to get rid of the scumbag that remained in their city to continue murdering innocent residents.
Openly supporting an illegal action, despite trying to spin it as " mostly good intentioned" doesn't work with informed Americans. No one is falling for the double speak democrats are trying to spin on their support and riots that support sanctuary cities. Shameless.
Immigration? Is that what this has been twisted into? Sanctuary cities simply don't act as ICE. They cooperate if they are criminals but ICE has a job and local police are not ICE. Trying to make it a bigger deal doesn't make it a bigger deal and no laws are broken. Sanctuary cities are not breaking any laws. As for blue state programs, which is what this thread is about, blue states are fine paying for their own states and for their own state citizens.
Because most rich Liberals and rich people in general are cheap and selfish as all hell. They'd rather buy a new mansion, sports car or yacht, then complain about being aggrieved in some way.
But, isn't Bill Gates a philanthropy and have a charitable foundation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats love sanctuary cities
