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?
I'm a moderate but have thought this exact same thing before..
One would think that but no. The title of this thread says it all. Liberals have no problem paying for social programs. What we deeply resent is paying for those programs that benefit people who complain about those programs while taking those programs!
Look at what TrumpCare does to rural and older Americans. It increases costs up to five times the amount younger Americans pay. Why? Because Obamacare reduced those costs for older Americans. Did older Americans appreciate that? Nope, they voted for Trump.* So now, Trump will increase their costs and they will probably be just fine with it. Before it was socialism. So what happens is we end up paying for these programs, they partake of the programs then vote against the programs. See the problem?
I agree that it's frustrating to see people voting against their own economic interests and getting duped by con-men like Trump. But how does that negatively affect you? If anything, you might pay lower taxes if benefits are cut.
The people that get screwed are the people who need social programs and were smart enough to not vote for Trump. That's who I feel bad for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Let blue states create programs that benefit blue state voters and let blue states restrict those benefits to blue states and have the ability to create very lengthy residency requirements so they aren't paying for red state refugees.
A lot of states do that already, I think. For example, CA has MediCal and my former state of PA has CHIP healthcare for children.
But people like Gates and Buffet can not save everyone with the limited amount of money they have. Gates and Buffet have less than $200 billion dollars combined, in comparison the US government receives over $3 trillion dollars in tax revenues a year, and people like Gates and Buffet simply don't have enough money to save everyone.
And you speak of healthcare for all Americans and equal pay for men and women as some evil, radical socialist agenda. Shouldn't any caring, honorable, and civilized American support healthcare for all and equal pay for men and women?
5.6 million people INTERNATIONALLY!
How about saving some Americans first?
Their private charities are nothing but legal tax evasion.
I agree that it's frustrating to see people voting against their own economic interests and getting duped by con-men like Trump. But how does that negatively affect you? If anything, you might pay lower taxes if benefits are cut.
The people that get screwed are the people who need social programs and were smart enough to not vote for Trump. That's who I feel bad for.
A lot of states do that already, I think. For example, CA has MediCal and my former state of PA has CHIP healthcare for children.
But that's not what this thread is about. The thread is asking why liberals don't pool their money together to solve social problems. We would be happy to. We just don't appreciate that money going to people who take the money while demonizing it and voting against it. Why isn't this obvious?
We want and philosophically agree with the programs. We want them for our own states. We don't want to pay for others who don't want them until they conveniently want to scrape the cream off the top when they need it. We want them for our own citizens that pay into it consistently so the pricing is based on the average, not on being the backup plan for red state refugees.
And I don't feel sorry for people that voted for Trump and then realize they lose the programs they've been screaming about. They voted against them, they should lose them. They should live the results of their vote. And since blue states believe in those programs, they should be able to implement them for their own states without having to pay for red states. Red states should be very happy not to pay for programs they don't want to pay for. It works out for everyone.
As long as that money goes to blue states, that sounds great. We need to stop being the caretakers for red states.
You know once you create the fund, you have control where and whom the money goes to.
It would have nothing to do with any government - it's completely private.
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.
So what happens is we end up paying for these programs, they partake of the programs then vote against the programs. See the problem?
