She picked Tim

[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.

+1

[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.

+1

Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) worked in 1952 US with the population it had then. Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) becomes much harder to sustain when the population grows primarily due to mass illegal immigration/asylum seekers.
Just take a look at what's happening in Europe.
[url]https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe[url]

[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.

That is an English translation of his name.

[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.

+1

Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) worked in 1952 US with the population it had then. Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) becomes much harder to sustain when the population grows primarily due to mass illegal immigration/asylum seekers.
Just take a look at what's happening in Europe.
[url]https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe[url]

https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) worked in 1952 US with the population it had then. Socialism (and socialist policies and programs) becomes much harder to sustain when the population grows primarily due to mass illegal immigration/asylum seekers.
Just take a look at what's happening in Europe.
[url]https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe[url]

https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2024/08/adkins-riots-in-the-uk-are-a-harbinger-of-anti-immigration-violence-across-europe

It would be wise to follow what's happening in Europe because it's a harbinger of what will happen here as well if we go down the socialist rabit hole.

[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.

+1

Honey, no one is saying socialism is a bad word. Socialism is great. It worked wonderfully in So iet Union and we will happily vote for it in US this November. But I don’t think the candidates who are marxists or promote socialism should be denying it. They will be more popular if they will openly stand for it. There are a lot of fans of socialism in US and we can turn this country blue!

[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.

+1

Honey, no one is saying socialism is a bad word. Socialism is great. It worked wonderfully in So iet Union and we will happily vote for it in US this November. But I don’t think the candidates who are marxists or promote socialism should be denying it. They will be more popular if they will openly stand for it. There are a lot of fans of socialism in US and we can turn this country blue!

Yes - at least don't freaking deny it! Better yet..go ahead and rename it the Social(ist) Democratic Party. Because the socialist policies and programs are working out so well for Europe - there aren't any riots or protests and they are all one big happy family.

[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.

+1

Honey, no one is saying socialism is a bad word. Socialism is great. It worked wonderfully in So iet Union and we will happily vote for it in US this November. But I don’t think the candidates who are marxists or promote socialism should be denying it. They will be more popular if they will openly stand for it. There are a lot of fans of socialism in US and we can turn this country blue!

F**k off, MAGA troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Honey, no one is saying socialism is a bad word. Socialism is great. It worked wonderfully in So iet Union and we will happily vote for it in US this November. But I don’t think the candidates who are marxists or promote socialism should be denying it. They will be more popular if they will openly stand for it. There are a lot of fans of socialism in US and we can turn this country blue!

Yes - at least don't freaking deny it! Better yet..go ahead and rename it the Social(ist) Democratic Party. Because the socialist policies and programs are working out so well for Europe - there aren't any riots or protests and they are all one big happy family.

Hur de hur de hur. MAGA wit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young voters love him.

I don't have polling on how minorities feel about him - but I think generally, you'll find appreciation for a a white guy who is taking second chair to a Black woman and giving her all his support. See also, Joe Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young voters love him.

I don't have polling on how minorities feel about him - but I think generally, you'll find appreciation for a a white guy who is taking second chair to a Black woman and giving her all his support. See also, Joe Biden.

do. He's the beloved social studies teacher to his students and reminds many young voters of the significant teacher in their lives. He not only cared about his students, but he actively did things to help them. That resonates with young voters who are so much closer to their school days.

They also love his political stances which are much more pragmatic and speaks to issues that are important to young voters. Seeing problems and finding solutions is very midwestern and Minnesotan. My spouse is from Minnesota and I recognize those traits about caring and helping. So many people in many of the swing states hate the polarization of politics, but his midwestern plain-folks image and stories will resonate with them. Someone who looks at problems with a practical "how to fix it" attitude rather than political rhetoric from their party is a breath of fresh air to many, many voters across the spectrum. He's the every man which is so much more appealing to many than the puffed up cardboard caricature that so many politicians seem to be.

+1

[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.

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.

That is an English translation of his name.

Well, we're writing in English. Why make an exception specifically for his name when I've never seen anyone on here (for example) refer to Turkey as Türkiye?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Honey, no one is saying socialism is a bad word. Socialism is great. It worked wonderfully in So iet Union and we will happily vote for it in US this November. But I don’t think the candidates who are marxists or promote socialism should be denying it. They will be more popular if they will openly stand for it. There are a lot of fans of socialism in US and we can turn this country blue!

Yes - at least don't freaking deny it! Better yet..go ahead and rename it the Social(ist) Democratic Party. Because the socialist policies and programs are working out so well for Europe - there aren't any riots or protests and they are all one big happy family.

Hur de hur de hur. MAGA wit!

Funny response considering I'm not a MAGA voter. But I do call it like it is. I know European Socialist Policies and Programs very well. You cannot deny that the Democratic party is shifting towards a more "European" Democratic party with are all "socialist". I mean it's not all bad -- there are many good "socialist" policies and programs in Europe but just don't go thinking it's all rainbows and unicorns. There's a reason my parents immigrated here from Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young voters love him.

I don't have polling on how minorities feel about him - but I think generally, you'll find appreciation for a a white guy who is taking second chair to a Black woman and giving her all his support. See also, Joe Biden.

Of course they do. He's the beloved social studies teacher to his students and reminds many young voters of the significant teacher in their lives. He not only cared about his students, but he actively did things to help them. That resonates with young voters who are so much closer to their school days.

They also love his political stances which are much more pragmatic and speaks to issues that are important to young voters. Seeing problems and finding solutions is very midwestern and Minnesotan. My spouse is from Minnesota and I recognize those traits about caring and helping. So many people in many of the swing states hate the polarization of politics, but his midwestern plain-folks image and stories will resonate with them. Someone who looks at problems with a practical "how to fix it" attitude rather than political rhetoric from their party is a breath of fresh air to many, many voters across the spectrum. He's the every man which is so much more appealing to many than the puffed up cardboard caricature that so many politicians seem to be.

I am the PP and I think that's really like. Plus I think he's got some of that Bernie grandpa thing going on. I was not a Bernie fan but I would walk through fire for Walz - I'm a middle aged white lady - but I think something they share beyond being older white guys, is that they both seem real. They don't seem manufactured in some lab to create politicians.

Bernie has a grumpy shouty guy side to him - I don't see that in Walz at all. He seems just so genuinely decent and nice. I could cry over how genuinely decent and nice he seems. I feel like we are being redeemed.

He's the dad version of Bernie. His reels with his daughter Hope are sweet and funny. Everyone who actually knows him (conservatives and liberals) describe him as decent and kind. Conservative trolls trying "swiftboat 2.0" won't work because we know decency when we see it. It is already backfiring.

[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?

But can you cite any portion of Karl Marx's work?