More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Race (Asian) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Race (Asian) 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
They should, after they rescind the temporary sales tax increase. There is no surplus until they no those results. 7 years ago from a Republican in Union City, CA
WHY? So our Pollutiticians can pocket MORE tax money..I am totally against supporting more freeloading LAWYERS. They are NO different than Welfare recipients, except lawyers use taxpayers money to ADD to what they are already making... 7 years ago from a Republican in Garden Grove, CA
Who's rainy day? The politicians? Nancy Pelosi's (she is already a big tax waster) The environmental groups? Another big NO! Thanks for giving us a heads up so that we can inform our friends to start an opposition group. 7 years ago from a Republican in Alameda, CA
Yes, increase our savings, and cut spending. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Fresno, CA
I am to uninformed to have an opinion. 7 years ago from a Democrat in El Cerrito, CA
Only if there is a true surplus without raising any taxes and/or fees. Taxes should not be increased in order to build the surplus. 7 years ago from a Republican in Fullerton, 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
Yes, but it must be for Higher Education, infrastructure, K-12 Education and nothing else. 7 years ago from a Democrat in San Diego, CA
No, invest money into public education instead. 7 years ago from a Socialist in Tracy, CA
1% would be reasonable. Need to cut state spending. Limit growth to inflation plus legal population growth. 7 years ago from a Republican in Rancho Santa Fe, CA
Yes, and cut spending at the same time. Stop providing medical insurance to people who were elected to an office and are no longer serving. 7 years ago from a Republican in Coyote, CA
Not 3%. Too high. Closer to 1.25%. After 4 years, that's 5 percent, after 8 years, that's 10 percent. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Granada Hills, CA
Establish strict limits on new spending -- link legislative salaries to spending control by legislature. 7 years ago from a Republican in Mission Viejo, 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