More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Master's Degree voters
Last answered 5 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Master's Degree 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.
Education 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
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. 6 years ago from a Republican in Alameda, CA
No, it will always be plundered. 6 years ago from a Republican in San Diego, 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
I have no knowledge regarding this issue. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Brisbane, CA
No, spending should be directed to public schools. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA
Yes, but only after the full Prop 98 portion is allotted to public education. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Davis, 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
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
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
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