She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Football coach, public school teacher, mentor, national guard for 20+ years, IVF dad, american patriot - I LOVE Tim Walz!

+1 love this from 18 years ago

He is so plain vanilla white old dude. He does not appeal to anyone except radical left, rioters or illegal immigrants.

Spoken like a Republican white old dude/dudette who watches FOX/Newsmax all day. "rADicAL lEfT, rIOtErS, iLleGaL iMmiGrAnTs."

The audacity to be this pompous supporting a f***king anti-American RAPIST who tried to overthrow the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

It's Marx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Football coach, public school teacher, mentor, national guard for 20+ years, IVF dad, american patriot - I LOVE Tim Walz!

+1 love this from 18 years ago

He is so plain vanilla white old dude. He does not appeal to anyone except radical left, rioters or illegal immigrants.

I am still trying to understand who is his base. He clearly not a person who appeals to minorities. He has no appeal to young voters. He is not very educated to appeal to city elites. Midwestern overweight middle age white woman? It was a poor choice.

In other words, you live in a bubble and know nothing about the reaction to him. The feminine product attack on him alone has endeared him to many who didn't know. It backfired on Republicans by highlighting what he did for YOUNG people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

It's Marx.

To be fair. In Cyrillic it’s “marks”.
So I think we know where pp hails from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

Is Harris the president?

Not yet?

Then what are you complaining about?

The Dems have tried to get more for families in terms of extending child tax credits, that the GOP opposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

Agree -- it is Socialist - even worse.

Actually....more accurately....it is socialization via sharing the costs of something that benefits the whole. Which is fine...but if you are going to give the same equal handouts to everyone. Raising my taxes to nearly double what it is now to pay for free college for those who can afford it. No.

However, honestly the whole free lunches to ALL students (at least K-6 perhaps) I could get behind because for that I would be willing to compromise to pay higher taxes.

There has to be a middle ground though - the socialization of "certain" things to share the costs of something that benefits the whole but not for everything.

But this requires changing the entire US culture -- because our society has always been a "need-based" free this and that kind of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

Harris was busy fixing the border crisis, that’s why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

Agree -- it is Socialist - even worse.

Actually....more accurately....it is socialization via sharing the costs of something that benefits the whole. Which is fine...but if you are going to give the same equal handouts to everyone. Raising my taxes to nearly double what it is now to pay for free college for those who can afford it. No.

However, honestly the whole free lunches to ALL students (at least K-6 perhaps) I could get behind because for that I would be willing to compromise to pay higher taxes.

There has to be a middle ground though - the socialization of "certain" things to share the costs of something that benefits the whole but not for everything.

But this requires changing the entire US culture -- because our society has always been a "need-based" free this and that kind of society.

always?

not really.

Agriculture subsides go back almost a hundred years. At the local level, public housing and food banks go back more than a century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

This drives me crazy. Socialism should not be thought of as a bad word. Is it simple when production, distribution, and exchange of a good is shared by the community.

Therefore, yes, "postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on." are indeed forms of socialism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of socialism. Like anything else, however, bad actors have given it a bad name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

This drives me crazy. Socialism should not be thought of as a bad word. Is it simple when production, distribution, and exchange of a good is shared by the community.

Therefore, yes, "postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on." are indeed forms of socialism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of socialism. Like anything else, however, bad actors have given it a bad name.

The confusion comes when comparing the US to European countries -- the Party of European Socialists (PES) where the countries are democratic (not to be confused with the US political democratic party) but also "Socialist".

The PES includes parties such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the French Socialist Party, the British Labour Party, the Italian Democratic Party, the Portuguese Socialist Party, the Romanian Social Democrat Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Then there is the wider Progressive Alliance or Socialist International.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

I don’t need to look up the definition. I can cite any portion of Karl Marks work if you wake me up in the middle of the night. What you described is socialism, which is totally fine form of government. The question is why Harris still was not able to fid all the hungry children if her policies work in the last 4 years?

Because the Republicans in the House let the child tax credit expire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

This drives me crazy. Socialism should not be thought of as a bad word. Is it simple when production, distribution, and exchange of a good is shared by the community.

Therefore, yes, "postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on." are indeed forms of socialism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of socialism. Like anything else, however, bad actors have given it a bad name.

The confusion comes when comparing the US to European countries -- the Party of European Socialists (PES) where the countries are democratic (not to be confused with the US political "Democratic" party) but also "Socialist".

The PES includes parties such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the French Socialist Party, the British Labour Party, the Italian Democratic Party, the Portuguese Socialist Party, the Romanian Social Democrat Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Then there is the wider Progressive Alliance or Socialist International.

In terms of the well-established PES (Europe is much older than the US - so politically speaking we are behind in the political times) the US is currently at a crossroads....the US Democratic party is shifting towards something akin to the PES, I wouldn't be surprised if their long-term plan was to rebrand as the Social(ist) Democratic Party.

And what does this have to do with our illegal immigration crisis? Look at the anti-immigration riots and protests breaking out in the UK and check out this article:
https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe

If we continue on our path to a more Social(ist) Democratic Party, I see the same future for the US. I'm not saying the GOP has it right either - they are the other extreme...which by the way is gaining momentum in European countries as a backlash to how far the "socialist" governments have gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Tim Walz’s only achievement that he can brag about is instituting a “free school meal” program. But is it really the big deal he’s making it out to be? Nope, and here’s why:

First off it’s nothing unusual. Every state has some kind of free and/or reduced meal program. Yes, including all the red states. Second, is that the media touts this as though every school in Minnesota has free lunch. This is patently false. Only schools with a certain percentage of students, who’s parents sign their kids up for free lunch are eligible to have their entire student body be included in the program. Third, he’s not doing it for the kids. He’s doing it for federal money.

This is how it all comes together. The reason all states have a free meal program of some kind is because part of the federal E-Rate program is a provision that allocates federal grant money to K-12 education based on the number of students who received free or reduced lunch. In fact, you will find the language “free and reduced lunch” in the language of every state law that mandates it. Why? Because that’s how the federal government defined it. Almost every government education grant program now uses this same language.

The reason Tim Walz and his Democrat buddies expanded it to every student in a school with a certain percentage of students below a given income level was to maximize the number of schools that received this federal funding. Because the schools themselves do not require parents to qualify for these programs by actually looking at their income or tax returns, anyone can sign up for it. That’s right. Even a parent with a double or triple six figure salary can sign their child up for free lunch as though they are poor.

This is why schools across the country beat the free lunch drum so loudly. It’s also why Tim Walz has so many kids on these programs. Now the federal money the schools receive is supposed to go to providing tools for teaching students, most of it never does. Over half of it is wasted on vanity projects and technology that never even makes it to the classroom. The rest is used for indoctrination programs like CRT and other such ilk. Leftist teacher’s unions are the by far the biggest single recipients, who then turn around and give the money back to democrats in the form of campaign contributions. It’s basically a big money laundering scam.

So how do you know all this? Because I worked in K-12 education for 10 years in the technology department of a large school district, and I wrote many of the grant proposals used by that district during that time. I saw how the money was raised, how the students who didn’t need free lunch were signed up, and I saw how the money was wasted. K-12 technology is a very small world. When you're part of the admin of those departments you meet people from all over the country. It works this way EVERYWHERE.

There’s nothing altruistic about Tim Walz, he’s just funneling federal money to his political party.

See, here is one of the fundamental differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. The Republican party hates abuse of privileges and they look at a program like this and see that there are undeserving children getting a benefit, e.g. wealthier families getting free lunches when they don't qualify or need. They don't care that being overly restricted might mean that there are some schools with small poor populations will not get the program and a handful of kids who truly need the program would not be able to get a free meal. The losers are just consequences to them and not particularly important ones.

Democrats look at a program like this and want to find a way to guarantee that every child who needs it, the poor children that typically fall through the cracks are guaranteed to get the benefit. They don't care if a few extra right kids get free meals they don't need as long as the poor ones get the meals. If they have to give a few free meals out to wealthier families to ensure that all poor kids get meals, they are happy to make that concession to ensure that all deserving kids get the benefit.

Republicans want benefits to ONLY those who need and if the needed population does not qualify, then no plan. Democrats want benefits to ALL who need and if a few others get benefits they are not entitled to, then they'll get them.

I like the Democratic option here better.

Well....I hate to break it to you but that's socialism.

If you like that option so much better -- which is a totally socialist option -- then when it comes to eligibility for federal student financial aid for college education, a family's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) which is currently an index # used to determine eligibility AND the amount of federal student financial aid received based on how much money parents should no longer be a thing. So, children whose parents make $400K/year should be just as eligible and for the same amount of federal student financial aid as children whose parents make $100K/year??? It's the same principle based on common sense.

Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps?



Your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is an index number used to determine your eligibility for federal student financial aid.
So....when put my kids through college and because of my
So I don't qualify for free food stamps, but I should get them anyways?

Actually not socialism. Look up the actual definition.

if that is "socialism" then so is the postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on.

This drives me crazy. Socialism should not be thought of as a bad word. Is it simple when production, distribution, and exchange of a good is shared by the community.

Therefore, yes, "postal service, the military, the interstate highway system and so on." are indeed forms of socialism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of socialism. Like anything else, however, bad actors have given it a bad name.

The confusion comes when comparing the US to European countries -- the Party of European Socialists (PES) where the countries are democratic (not to be confused with the US political "Democratic" party) but also "Socialist".

The PES includes parties such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the French Socialist Party, the British Labour Party, the Italian Democratic Party, the Portuguese Socialist Party, the Romanian Social Democrat Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Then there is the wider Progressive Alliance or Socialist International.

In terms of the well-established PES (Europe is much older than the US - so politically speaking we are behind in the political times) the US is currently at a crossroads....the US Democratic party is shifting towards something akin to the PES, I wouldn't be surprised if their long-term plan was to rebrand as the Social(ist) Democratic Party.

And what does this have to do with our illegal immigration crisis? Look at the anti-immigration riots and protests breaking out in the UK and check out this article:
https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe

If we continue on our path to a more Social(ist) Democratic Party, I see the same future for the US. I'm not saying the GOP has it right either - they are the other extreme...which by the way is gaining momentum in European countries as a backlash to how far the "socialist" governments have gone.

The rise in far-right populism in Europe is a direct response to the extreme left socialist policies because as my cousin in Europe stated, "of course...the left has lost their minds".

All of this to point out that extreme right and extreme left political governments do not work. Wish our population had more common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since the riots, the total number of police in the state of Minnesota are down by 40%.

Crime in Minnesota is up by 30% over the same time period.

This all happened under Tim’s watch.

Not only are your numbers out of thin air, the atmosphere on Mars is thicker.
Statewide violent crime in Minnesota was 1% higher than before the pandemic in 2022. In Minneapolis it was 2% higher, but has declined in both 2022 and 2023. (uniform crime reporting numbers for 2023 are not out yet).

Loss of police law enforcement officers in the twin cities has been steep since 2019, there was an increase in crime during the pandemic (reflected across the country), but violent crime decreased in the cities in both 2022 and 2023. There is an acknowledged shortage of police officers in the state, especially in the twin cities--although in fact violent crime rates really don't track with law enforcement numbers across years of data. But the loss of law enforcement officers isn't because of anything Walz did. It's a nationwide problem that has been going on for years, with a lot of metro areas losing large percentages of officers and fewer people applying.

Which means taking less qualified people or accepting applicants with priors (like the guy who shot the woman over the boiling water).
Which creates huge problems in public perception of how police engage with citizens.
Which makes more people not want to deal with that.

Anyway, law enforcement in the US is primarily local--cities, counties, states, with federal agencies having specific jurisdiction related to federal crimes. I don't know if Walz reduced the numbers of state troopers, but he didn't fire Minneapolis police officers.