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?
This really baffles me.
Why doesn't Trumps cabinet club together to pay for his dumb wall?
Why doesn't Trumps cabinet club together to pay for his dumb wall?
That's something I would totally support. Let red states get their wall, let Trump, his supporters, Trump's cabinet and those same red states pay for it. Done and done. If states could choose the issues they want to fund, the country would probably get along better. Liberals could fund the issues they care about and keep then within their respective states/regions.
I wouldn't, because the wall is still an asinine idea.
But, if Trump wants to build a giant erection to his narcism, he should do it on his own dimes.
No the wall we were talking about was around blue states. That makes more sense than Trump's wall. But if Trump supporters were paying for Trump's wall, I wouldn't care.
No, it doesn't.
Neither wall makes the slightest bit of sense.
It does if you are a blue state that doesn't want to absorb the costs of red state refugees. If Trump gets his healthcare bill, red states can apply for waivers to not cover pre-existing conditions. Those people will join a pool that clearly won't have enough money, so most will lose coverage. Are blue states supposed to pay for them?
That's the point - this thread is asking why liberals don't pool their money. We would do so gladly - for ourselves. We should NOT absorb the costs of red state refugees, thus increasing our own costs in the process. We want to pay the average, not the increase based on a skewed calculation because red states run to us for our benefits. Expect this to become a huge issue in the coming years. We need the ability to create 10+ residency requirements so we aren't absorbing red state costs.
Isn't that what Republicans have been saying for...EVER? I'm agreeing with them. Why is it okay for Republicans to say it and not Democrats? The whole point of this thread is saying why don't liberals pool their money for social programs. I agree! I just want my money to go to other liberals. What I resent is my money going to people who take my money but don't represent me. People who scream socialism while rushing to the trough to eat up my tax dollars. I complete agree with the OP, let liberals pool their money - but keep that pool for liberals (blue states). Red states can fund themselves; or not fund themselves, we don't care.
Yeah that's basic human tribal psychology: we want our charitable efforts to go to our kind and not those people.
It's why we will never have a Scandinavian-style social democracy in the USA. We are far too diverse: a nation of divided tribes. The white rednecks don't like social spending (even if they are getting it themselves) because it might also help "those people" (aka blacks, hispanics, and Muslims). Elites on the coasts don't want their taxes going to "those people" (the uneducated rubes in the Midwest). Christians don't want their taxes going to Muslims, and vice versa. It's how humans are wired.
Of course, I didn't say they didn't but it's people who can afford higher priced homes and have higher income who benefit... but not at the rate states with high SALT taxes like NY and CA. Essentially by allowing people to deduct SALT, the federal government is subsidizing high tax states. Rich people benefit from the SALT deduction more than you do. I thought you wanted the rich to pay "their fair share"? I guess not if they are Democrats.
Keeping in line with this thread topic, why would the liberals in high tax states fight losing this deduction. It helps pay for raising the standard deduction for everyone and it helps people in lower incomes keep more of their money.
Many middle class people in NY, NJ pay upwards of $10,000 in real estate taxes, it will be a real battle to remove that one. There are many inequities in the tax code like that across the nation, different states have varying amount of benefits. How do you eliminate real estate but retain deductions for mortgage and income tax, why are they even part of the tax code. Very difficult if you are going to start drawing lines around special interest tax advantages.
Those rich people are Democrats because they know they are easy to buy out politicians.
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.
