Asklemmy

43512 readers

1352 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

121

Why does a state like California that has supermajorities in both houses of the legislature not have a livable wage, housing guarantees, universal healthcare, and other very progressive policies? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I keep being told it's because of the Republicans that we can't have nice things. So what gives in California? We should be overflowing with progressive policies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Because its not a solution, it just makes the problem worse. It'll just create even more money under 100 people can gobble up.

The money exists! It needs to be liberated from wasteful uses such as arms, billionaires or shareholders. We can also print more money, sure, but without first fixing the underlying spending/allocation/hoarding issue, we'd only be feeding the dragon.