this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
134 points (95.3% liked)

politics

30230 readers
2353 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
134
‘Thinking He Can Fool Everyone,’ Newsom Backs One Billionaires Tax But Not Another | “The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supp… (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 3 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/politics@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Supporting an income tax on wealth proves two things.

  1. He is working with the wealthy which isn’t surprising.

  2. And the common people have no idea how wealth is obtained and maintained.

The only way to hurt the wealthy is a tax on hoarded money. It needs to be a percentage of money they currently have from whatever means. Which is what they were proposing in CA. Another thing that needs to change is the tax on long term capital gains. It should be commensurate with income tax rates regardless of how long term they are.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 56 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Newsom is a great example of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.

He knows what wins, he knows the messaging. He knows how people want him to govern.

And he says he’s all that.

And then he sweeps up and arrests homeless people because they’re doing some sports thing and we can’t have that instead of doing anything that would actually be a solution.

The dude is a hypocrite. He’s not gonna be the solution to our problems. At best he’ll just keep things from getting even worse while the GOP find some one to replace Trump.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yup. These stories about Newsom just stress me out because all signs are that he is going to be the corporate Dem primary candidate in 2028, getting massive finding and unearned support.

There needs to be a better Dem primary candidate to back to avoid another status quo Biden break from Trump that just ends up accelerating a pendulum swing back. AOC is the best possibility at the moment but Trump and co, and the mainstream media either by bias or recklessness, have effectively denied any other left politicians a national platform or name recognition (apart from Mamdani who they thought they could strangle in the crib, which thankfully backfired on them spectacularly).

So if the primary were held right now, Newsom would win, and it makes me ill to think about it. Something has to change.

[–] MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As much as I love AOC, I'm worried that there are too many people nationwide that are racist, sexist, ageist, and/or anti-leftist enough to be rabidly against her, especially with the target that right wing media unfairly paints on her. I'll vote my ass off for her, but there's a big difference between winning her congressional seat or even NY Senate seat vs an electoral college win when we already know that TX and FL will never pick her over any R. I don't even think she'd have a shot at PA, GA, or OH. She might get AZ and NV.

I would love to see her on the debate stage, but I think the most realistic, successful path for her is to take Schumer's Senate seat for a term and then run for president, lose in the primary, but be part of that cabinet, maybe even VP. Or maybe she goes after NY Governor to prove executive leadership before running for president. She's proven herself to us, but we're a relatively small demographic.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's wild how we cater to the feelings of such voters while telling leftists they need to vote blue no matter who to save democracy. Where is that messaging for the xenophobes?

[–] MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not interested in catering to anybody's feelings. It's just not necessarily a slam dunk win to run AOC in a national race with the electoral college in place to ensure conservatives and neoliberals keep power. Maybe once the boomers die off. Maybe if the electoral college were abolished. Until then, it's extremely risky, and it'd be foolish not to recognize that.

As for the xenophobes, that messaging isn't necessary; the xenophobic fascist won the presidency. They're never gonna vote for a brown woman with a name that's hard to pronounce.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 2 days ago

The bigots are going to vote for the biggest bigot regardless.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Seriously!

Like- all you need to know about him is that he platformer Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon as some of his guests on that podcast of his.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

He's a sleezeball

[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Hear me out, but there might be a point here.

If this tax goes federal, then there's no way to escape it, other than to leave the country and not use its resources.

If the state-level tax passes, the billionaires will shop for a friendly state to avoid it.

Probably gonna get roasted but my two cents.

[–] NM_Gringo@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

He's counting on it not getting through congress. And he doesn't have to take responsibility if doesn't pass. It will pass in CA and he'll own it.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (5 children)

You can be suspicious of Newsom and also acknowledge that he's right about the federal level thing, though.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Sure, if he were being honest about and didn't know perfectly well it has no chance of happening.

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Was gonna say this. At the state level people just leave your state. At the federal level it's a lot harder to ignore.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

He’s wrong about his proposal actually doing anything, his suggestion is an income tax, not a wealth tax.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

It's one of the few things I can sympathize with him on. I would much rather see a national billionaire tax crackdown than an expansion of our shitty, loophole ridden state system we have now

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 1 points 2 days ago

Right in that it will fail at the national level as he expects. It's such a slime ball move.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I will never vote for Newsom. I don't care if the election is close. I don't care if he's the lesser evil. Don't talk to me about vulnerable people, because if that was a priority, then Newsom will not be the nominee.

If liberals can ignore our voices, they can manage without our votes.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He's stopping what he has power to stop, and telling people to stop trying to fix anything incrementally, we have to not fix anything till we fix it everywhere. And even then I'm sure what he's backing is toothless.

Like when Nixon created the EPA, it wasn't because he wanted to protect the environment, he was just scared of an agency with actual teeth was about to be created. Once the EPA was slapped together, Nixon used that to kill the real one that was in the works.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would like to know more about this mythical super-EPA.

[–] TheGoldenV@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

It never came back after the three days…