10

Newsom is shitty but THIS IS THE WAY!!!

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Plesiohedron@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 week ago

That might break the statehood contract. Which would lead to repercussions. Which would lead to more repercussions...

As everybody involved well knows, of course.

[-] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

See, when people say Democrats need to start DOING things to push back against Trump, this is what they're talking about.

Is this a foolproof idea? Probably not. Could it backfire? Possibly. Will it really help? If it makes the admin second-guess what it can get away with, yeah, that's helpful. This is the energy we need. Stop playing softball with these fascists.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

"Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,” the Democratic governor said in an X post Friday afternoon, referencing a recent analysis from the Rockefeller Institute that California contributed about $83 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than it received back from Washington."

So if Newsome cuts off the flow, it's not just the $83B overage, it's everything + $83B.

California is, what? 13th largest economy in the world? 11th?

Whoah... 4th. Just ahead of Japan and behind Germany:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/04/23/california-is-now-the-4th-largest-economy-in-the-world/

US and China being #1 and 2.

[-] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

California, propping up red states since 1970’s…

[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago

Did something happen then that started to prevent red states from having functional economies?

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Regularity capture. Lobbying. Lead poisoning. Terrible politicians. Regressive tax policies.

[-] bitofarambler@crazypeople.online 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Texas is the 8th largest economy in the world.

that blew my mind recently.

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 0 points 1 week ago

I'm too lazy to verify my hunch, but I'm guessing Texas is largely oil (exploiting natural resources), whereas California is largely intellectual output (tech, with some Hollywood and other sundry stuff), though California certainly does exploit its natural resources too (good farming conditions, some oil...).

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago

No, they have a ton of industry. Specifically a lot of the actual weapons manufacturing btw.

Texas is more or less what Ukraine was to the Soviet Union, if you want to understand why a fascist loser like Putin is so hung up on getting it back. A significant source of resources, manufacturing, and expertise.

Ukraine was the California of the USSR but with the natural resources of Texas

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 1 week ago

California doesn't, or didn't, have a history as an independent state or popular desire to be so.

Mmm yeah, fair. Texas does have some more direct parallels in that realm

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Wine too I bet for California.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

Agriculture in general, really.

[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago

You know? It really begs the question:

What's preventing conservative states from being able to pay for their own social programs and infrastructure?

Is it liberal states absorbing all the wealth so that the conservative states can't grow? Is it that being conservative is actually really really bad for the economy? Maybe they just never recovered from having slavery taken away and refused to adapt. Because there's definitely something going on...

[-] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

When a State actually takes care of it's citizens, it becomes a better place to live and start businesses. That attracts and creates better educated and more affluent people, which makes it a better place to live and do business. People flee the poorer states for a better chance at success in the liberal state. Repeat this for a century or so and that's how conservative states become shitholes and liberal states (and countries) are much better off.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago

Not everyone who would move can afford to move.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's kind of the point. Financial capability is what leads this divergence. Those who have wealth take their wealth with them, leaving the state they come from further impoverished.

The discussion is not about equity or equality (which is what I believe your comment is pointing to), but instead looking at why this divergence potentially occurs.

[-] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

This ☝️

[-] argarath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It is true, but how does that contradict their argument or disprove it in any way?

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth -1 points 1 week ago

I didn't say it did. F those poor people, I guess.

[-] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

What does this even mean? Like W2 taxes go directly from employer to federal right? What kind of control can California actually do to stop monetary flow to the federal government?

[-] aramova@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago

Only problem I see with this plan is the Mustard Mussolini's fox and friends would push the federal financial systems to cut off Californians from the banking network, effectively embargoing the state.

As much money as it has, it's not totally self sufficient.

Plan a bit first, get some other states to join in, and countries who are sick of Trump's shit to help supply.

Worst case is the president comes in with military, while the Cali national guard could be called up, technically they can be federalized, court battles, federal soldiers looking to arrest Newsom.

Cali, Washington, New York, New Jersey splitting though would be a hell of a blow, cripple shipping.

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

How would CA even do this? Most of the taxes go from people to the feds without the state as an intermediary.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Doge just gutted the irs. Who will collect?

CA could just offer an service to run the irs around in circles or even pay for your audit.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Create an escrow account, and tell CA businesses that federal withholding goes there. Same with payments by individuals.

Maybe some won’t. But most probably will. Especially if you plan to tell them you’ll fund Medicare/aid and snap from it.

[-] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

I'd be fine if the west coast joined Canada somehow. I realize it's probably unrealistic and impossible, but one can dream.

Source: Live on the west coast.

[-] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

This Canadian doesn't want the added baggage of American guns, Jesus, and hubris.

[-] PTSDwarrior@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

I'd rather be an independent republic, with all the regions in California becoming states of this new country. And the new constitution must be made so that we don't have neglect of vast areas of our country, just like we currently have with the US constitution. Otherwise I can foresee far northern California and parts of the central valley becoming bitter right wing states which trample on individuals rights, just like all the red states of the current country.

[-] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No states 1 country. Otherwise we'd have our own Mississippi and Arkansas out in bum fucksville

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah usually I would disagree but having no state level divisions would be decent, it also would make things easier if we need to unite with WA, OR, NV, or AZ. Since then we could just reactivate the state level shit again.

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Considering how Trump is gutting the IRS I wonder why I’m paying federal taxes.

[-] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

why are you paying federal taxes? There are so many easy ways not to.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago
[-] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

fictional charitable donations are just one idea, but there are many others.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 week ago

Oh, guess that doesn't work for standard deduction/low income. At any rate, I'd probably just donate to known, reputable charities, and/or not deduct.

[-] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

yup, the standard deduction sucks. don't use it. and you don't actually need to donate much of anything. all you need are receipts and maybe photos. just don't go over 10k.

Seeing as how donactions are only a deduction from your taxable income, 10k won't get you to not paying taxes unless you make like 20 or 30k or something. And I gotta think thier system will flag that, probably just assuming it was a typo.

[-] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

o yes it will, you probably won't even need 1k in deductions if you income is that low.

this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24192 readers
2564 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS