Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:01 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,758,654 times
Reputation: 12944

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
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.
True. And after this election, I'm speaking for my tribe. If my vote counts for less than a voter in Wyoming, then I am more than happy to pay for our social costs as long as that money stays in our blue state/blue region. I could see Washington, Oregon and California becoming more region-centric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:04 PM
 
1,139 posts, read 1,350,853 times
Reputation: 2494
We already have socialized military, police, fire, schools etc.
I suppose we should stop funding the Army because it's a social program?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:06 PM
 
Location: TUS/PDX
7,834 posts, read 4,585,865 times
Reputation: 8864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Yeah that's basic human tribal psychology: we want our charitable efforts to go to our kind and not those people.
That might be the dopiest thing I've read on CD for awhile.

Tell me, why is it that those evil Hollywood-types make significant contributions to organizations such as UNICEF or Planned Parenthood? Things like Farm-Aid and the Katrina disaster? Because they feel starving African children and Iowa farmers are their kind?

Why was I cutting five figure checks to Feeding America when my refrigerator was full and in all probability a good percentage of the recipients of those food bank donations are Trump voters?

You're welcome to play politics with human misfortune, but don't project that on those of us that simply make an attempt to fill a need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:09 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,664,008 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
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?
They already do. As of 2012 Bill Gates and Warren Buffet saved over 5.6 million peoples lives with their private charities.
https://thenextweb.com/microsoft/201...#.tnw_AXbNPvQK

Gates and Buffet have also helped save the lives of 122 million children.
Bill Gates Has Helped Save The Lives Of 122 Million 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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:11 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,758,654 times
Reputation: 12944
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartGotts View Post
We already have socialized military, police, fire, schools etc.
I suppose we should stop funding the Army because it's a social program?
We could let them protect the states that pay the most? Mississippi is doomed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:35 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,259,580 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
LOL, is that before we subsidize your healthcare, rent, food and subsidize those mansion

Let's get one thing clear, we liberals in the blue states subsidize red states' welfare. CA, for example, gets only 75 cents on the dollar for all the taxes we pay. The rest goes to subsidizing poor red states.

The right-wings have been smooching off us hard working liberals for generations.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:38 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,758,654 times
Reputation: 12944
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
let's get one thing clear, we liberals in the blue states subsidize red states' welfare. Ca, for example, gets only 75 cents on the dollar for all the taxes we pay. The rest goes to subsidizing poor red states.

The right-wings have been smooching off us hard working liberals for generations.

.
Spot on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,811,216 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
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?
They are collectively protective of their own wealth. What they want is to use OPM to push the very things they would never expect themselves to be held to.

EXP: Gore demands we all pay a carbon tax and use less energy, while he wings around in his private jet, uses gas guzzling SUVs, and HVACs several of his large homes even when they are empty.

Nothing remotely hypocritical about him

Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
Let's get one thing clear, we liberals in the blue states subsidize red states' welfare. CA, for example, gets only 75 cents on the dollar for all the taxes we pay. The rest goes to subsidizing poor red states.

The right-wings have been smooching off us hard working liberals for generations.

.
Stop all welfare. Problem solved.

Of course then you'd be screaming from the rooftops how Republicans want people to die.

You victims play ever angle, and it's disgusting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,302 posts, read 2,363,382 times
Reputation: 1230
This should be directed at everyone. Whatever you and other like-minded people want to fund, pool your resources and go for it.

However, don't just decide "my cause is so noble that I'm allowed to force those who disagree with me to pay too"...and then complain when others do the same to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:46 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,758,654 times
Reputation: 12944
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
This should be directed at everyone. Whatever you and other like-minded people want to fund, pool your resources and go for it.

However, don't just decide "my cause is so noble that I'm allowed to force those who disagree with me to pay too"...and then complain when others do the same to you.
Totally agree. I have no problem with that. But here's the deal. Trump supporters seem to want the ER to be the back up for people with no health coverage. Blue states should not have to pay for red state ER costs or budget shortfalls or hospital bankruptcies. Because when ERs are used as the primary source of health coverage, it is the absolute most expensive way there is. And this is just one example.

I'm fine with having blue states fund our own issues, I just don't want to fund red state issues. I would rather pay for health coverage in my own blue state than a Mexican wall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top