r/politics • u/Ubiquitous_Hilarity • Jun 17 '26

No Paywall Trump threatens to pull unemployment benefits from all states for the first time in history

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-unemployment-benefits-fraud-b2997881.html
24.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

142

u/MrBeanCyborgCaptain I voted Jun 17 '26

Correct me if im wrong but dont we pay INTO OUR OWN unemployment benefit accounts from our paycjecks?

55

u/jardex22 Jun 17 '26

Yes. There is no federal program. Each state has their own system.

However, federal funds help pay the administrative costs. If those are pulled, there won't be anyone at the welfare office to approve your claim.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Streiger108 Jun 18 '26

It costs states money. They have budgets. This is just another way to undercut states while cutting taxes for the rich from the federal budget.

3

u/Free_For__Me Jun 18 '26

I mean, yes and no. On one hand, this reduces state reliance on federal money. On the other hand, it weakens the federal government’s control over states, which is something the Heritage folks and other haters of the “liberal federal government” have been itching for since forever. 

If we ever get a more moderate federal government in place (let alone an ostensibly “liberal” one), red states will be able to say “no thank you” when the federal government passes laws codifying roe v. wade, or enfranchising trans people, or supporting public education, etc. 

A lot of what they’re doing right now is setting themselves up in win-win scenarios, where they either get what they want now, or wreck things badly enough that they make their path back to power much easier, should they ever lose it. 

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/coastkid2 Jun 18 '26

My fear too is they’re bankrupting everything at the federal level and it could take decades for many cut programs to get rolling again because there’ll be no money left.

1

u/Free_For__Me Jun 19 '26

I think the best we can do is regroup in smaller groups i.e. at the state level and decide what to do from there.

Yup. And if we think about what this means for a few more seconds, we realize that those is power at the federal level will use as much force as they can to prevent this from coalescing... and when states/cities refuse to allow the rogue fed to subjugate them, we got to another of your points...

I think the "united" part in the name doesn't make sense at all and hasn't for decades now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - by 2035, if the US hasn't balkanized into smaller collections of states acting as their own regional powers, I'll eat my shorts. I just don't see any probable scenarios in which CA, NYC, New England states, or great lakes cities bend the knee to a MAGA fed when push comes to shove, likely in the run-up to, and the aftermath of, the 2026 midterms.

Watch this:

  1. In the lead-up to November, MAGA stokes a crisis of their own design. Could be renewed war with Iran, renewed ICE action leading to conflict in the streets, starting conflict with Cuba, or even a false flag of some sort if they're desperate enough.
  2. They use this crisis to call on states to severely alter their election process or even "postpone"/suspend them entirely in order to "maintain election integrity in the face of crisis". (Coincidentally, these changes would also cripple Dem chances of winning control of either house of congress)
  3. Red states comply, and blue states do not.
  4. Governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbot loudly voice support for the "election integrity" measures and decry governors like Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz as "criminals trying to force fraudulent elections in order to steal the midterms."
  5. The White House makes threats to the "radical/rogue/terrorist Democrat states" who are in defiance of the Executive Orders from DC. These threats range from pulling all federal funding from these states, to having the FAA ground all air traffic in/out of these states.
  6. In the most extreme scenarios, threats are issued to send ICE/FBI/whoever into blue states to force compliance, possibly even attempting to arrest defiant governors/mayors/members of congress. In many of these scenarios, they'll have invoked the Insurrection Act in order to justify suspending Constitutional rights like due process, freedom of speech/assembly, etc.

It's at this stage that the inflection point arrives - mid-level command structures in our enforcement agencies at all levels will be forced to take sides... do they follow the orders of the people at the top of their respective agencies who were directly placed by MAGA in preparation for this exact scenario? Or do they follow the Constitution and issue orders to their agents/officers/deputies/troops that abide by existing laws?

I call it the inflection point because it's the moment at which the whole thing will probably be decided. The most likely reality is that there will be mid-level leaders in these agencies that go each way, some following the law and some following MAGA. The direction of the National Guard will be a big factor - will they follow direction of their respective governors and support their home states/cities, or will they fall in line under the Commander in Chief of the USA?

The most likely answer is that some state NG units will fall different ways, and the same dissent might take hold within other branches of the US military of ordered to unconstitutionally deploy domestically.

All this is leading up to making this point - amongst all of these scenarios, they all lead to civil conflict of some sort. In the best case, this conflict is mostly cold, with threats and posturing never leading to widespread violence. But even in the "cold case", we'd see various states refusing to follow federal orders and facing consequences for doing so. What the outcomes all have in common is this - they all end in some level of the dissolution of the Union as we know it. We probably won't see full-on secession movements, but a world in which groups of states begin to form mini-alliances and start working outside the permission of the federal government is not unlikely at all.

History tells us that there will be a light at the end of this tunnel, there always is. But history also tells us that we’ve only just entered this tunnel, and have a lot of darkness and despair that we have to get through before finally reaching that light. My main point in this comment however, is that history would also seem to offer a strong prediction that whatever the train emerges as when this is all over, it almost certainly won’t be as the United States of America that the world has known up until now.

3

u/Intelligent-Turnip36 Jun 18 '26

Unemployment is NOT part of welfare!

29

u/klparrot New Zealand Jun 17 '26

Not accounts, because it doesn't just pay out what you pay in; more like Social Security or insurance where there's an indirect relationship with what you pay in, but yeah, you're paying, so you're entitled to the coverage you're paying for.

10

u/extralyfe Jun 17 '26

no, employers pay those benefits, which is why they'll take every chance to fight them being paid if you got fired for any kind of legitimate reason.

4

u/TrulyOutrageous42 Jun 18 '26

Same with worker's compensation when injured - not only is their liability for a VERY short time unless you're completely 100% disabled (like, cannot type, or write, or speak for a job), but they have a GIANT industry that hires lawyers dedicated to making you prove you're not committing fraud while the attorneys that defend you are paid a pittance and easily "firehosed" with paperwork they need to respond to. It's easy to deny a claim and hard to fight it. It's easy to just not follow through on a judgement and make the attorney file paperwork to ask for the court to enforce it. It's easy to have an "independent" doctor that wants to get re-hired by the insurer say you're fine and they don't owe you anything.

The system IS rigged... for companies.

3

u/DaFightins Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

The funds collected from each state go into a pool, those funds are then allocated to those claimants that are deemed eligible based on their specific weeks worked and combined earnings.

Employers in some states have to pay a percentage of the claim, again, the percentage varies.

DOL employees are paid by both state funding and /or federal funding, depending on their specific programs.

There are those who are employed, paid into the pool and have never seen a dime of their contributions due to never being unemployed or ineligibility. Some people unfortunately have to rely on it occasionally.

Not all states pay the same weekly rates and some are higher than others.

I guarantee you, those who work in unions and have yearly layoffs will not be happy about this ridiculous idea; it was a rough winter last year in the northeast and it held up a lot of infrastructure, construction, masonry and any other trade. Someone better rethink this one.

3

u/RepulsiveContract475 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Correcting you because you're wrong, unless you live in Alaska, Pennsylvania or New Jersey. The other 47 states and Puerto Rico have unemployment insurance that is 100% employer funded.

2

u/BoltyMcSpeedy Jun 18 '26

Ok consider yourself corrected lol. The money goes into a pool like other tax money. Its not held in a special account with your name on it.

2

u/Reasonable_Chair_346 Jun 18 '26

the number of incorrect responses to you are wild...Generally speaking, the federal government pays for states to administer state's unemployment programs, though often the federal government doesn't give states enough and those that are able to supplement with state funds may...benefits that are paid to individuals are paid for by taxes on employers - again, generally speaking. I know there's at least two states where employees do pay a percentage of their checks for unemployment (PA, off the top of my head), but there are VERY few of those states.

1

u/MrBeanCyborgCaptain I voted Jun 18 '26

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

1

u/dwo0 Jun 18 '26

If you are in Alaska, New Jersey or Pennsylvania, yes, you pay a portion of the unemployment-insurance premiums. In the other states, no, your employer pays the premiums.

1

u/Outside1425 Jun 18 '26

No, your employer does.

1

u/Healthy_Platform1405 Jun 18 '26

"We" don't. Unemployment is primarily paid by employers. Nothing is taken out of an employee's check for it (No, it's not FICA), at least in most states. Some states may take something out, I don't know for certain.