this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
28 points (83.3% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2744 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to latimes "In his veto message, Newsom said expanding benefits would make the state’s unemployment trust fund “vulnerable to insolvency.” California’s unemployment fund already is projected to be nearly $20 billion in debt"

From what I read that's largely due to the pandemic and fraud. Business closures and layoffs meant a record number of applications. Since the state couldn't pay for all of it it had to borrow from the federal government.

Can't say I blame him for not wanting to add to that debt but at the same time would unemployment benefits for, let's say a month, really have of added that much to that debt? I haven't run the math and I definitely can't tell how many would be eligible but it really does seem like it would be a drop in the bucket

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It’s to strengthen the unions’ hand and prevent businesses from trying something knowing that there is unemployment benefits for strikers

I am worried that Hollywood may try to pull something now or back off the deal

[–] No1RivenFucker -2 points 1 year ago

Extremely rare Newsom W. The government shouldn't be paying people to refuse to work.