More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Race (White) voters
Last answered 4 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Race (White) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 9, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Race data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
More stances on this issue
No, and since the government is supposed operate efficiently based on existing fees that are justified from a zero based budget, there should not be such a gap that would allow for 3% to be set aside for a rainy day. 6 years ago from a Republican in Goleta, CA
Kill the dream act in all of its forms and deport ALL illegal immigrants. if they want to return they need to follow procedure then by all means let them return and become part of the system instead of leeching from it. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Folsom, CA
No, it will always be plundered. 6 years ago from a Republican in San Diego, CA
No, there is too much waste that needs to be addressed. This money will be abused. 6 years ago from a Republican in Culver City, CA
Put money into maintaining and fireproofing wild areas so we don't need contingency funds for fire fighting. 6 years ago from a Republican in Edison, CA
Depends on how trustworthy and secure the rainy day fund is. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Aptos, CA
Yes but the money would not be allowed for anything, unless voted upon by registered voters. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Santa Rosa, CA
I have no knowledge regarding this issue. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Brisbane, CA
Yes, provided there is a cap on the maximum amount in the fund. The state government cannot borrow like the feds. This will provide a cushion in an economic downturn while cuts are enacted. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Kenwood, CA
Yes, but cut spending and invest into the state infrastructure. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Toluca Lake, CA
No, spending should be directed to public schools. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA
Cut spending so that current revenues can accommodate a 1.5% set aside to a rainy day fund. 7 years ago from a Republican in Northridge, CA
Cut the government untill balaned and 10% can be set aside and saved until the goverment does not have to tax due to the intrest on the savings. 7 years ago from a Republican in Escondido, CA
No opinion unless they default on loans to the federal government. 7 years ago from a Republican in Brisbane, CA
Yes but as a part of a balanced budget with reduced income taxes. 7 years ago from a Green in San Carlos, CA
Return the money to the people. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Rancho Cucamonga, CA
No, invest money into public education instead. 7 years ago from a Socialist in Tracy, CA
Yes, if we can afford to do so while maintaining essential services. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Spreckels, CA
In the future this would be a reasonable idea, but as we are in debt we have more important things to take care of at this point in time. 7 years ago from a Republican in Granite Bay, CA
Just cut taxes. 7 years ago from a Republican in Ridgecrest, CA
No use the funds to pay down pension debt and change govenemnt pensions. They are a disgrace. 7 years ago from a Republican in Mill Valley, CA
California should invest in a Green New Deal that would create jobs, solve environmental problems, improve funding for education, boost tax revenues with increased income sales tax with which we could gradually build up a reasonable reserve. 7 years ago from a Green in Sebastopol, CA