Anonymous
08/09/2024 14:00
Subject: She picked Tim
Tom Cotton, who has falsely claimed being an Army Ranger, criticizing Walz's military record is some serious chutzpah.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:58
Subject: She picked Tim
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people are bashing a guy who served for 24 years over a small technicality. Ffs.
Seriously, move on. This is all you've got? They're grasping at straws
People who are grasping at straws are now talking about eyeliner and sex with the sofa. That is a clear indication that the person must have a spotless record.
This is such a dumb response, because the couch and eyeliner nonsense are just jokes. We actually won't vote for him based on his actual ideology. He's Peter Thiel's little pet, but sure, all we have on Vance is a couch and eyeliner...and that will be the basis for voting against him. You're so brilliant.
You're the party obsessed with nonsense about KH's race.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:56
Subject: She picked Tim
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 make, 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???
Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps then?
Apologies - corrections to typos made above.
False choice fallacy - presenting being strict with welfare vs everyone getting welfare as the only two choices.
No one can ensure that welfare goes to only those who need it. How do we assign the error? Some undeserving people get it, or some deserving people don't get it. Thats the real choice.
Using your example, the EFC would be less for middle class families, the classic "donut hole", under a republican view. Under the democrat view, the "donut hole" families would get aid like lower class families. And what no one is discussing but you are conflating is upper class families getting financial aid.
I can't tell if you are a Russian troll or someone who is arguing in poor faith. And I don't think there's a false choice fallacy there
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:55
Subject: She picked Tim
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'm the PP being accused of socialism. Actually the services you list are much more socialist than the FARMS program. The FARMS program is not socialist. It is not available to all. There are conditions by which affected groups qualify. The issue for Republicans is that more people than the target group are included. They may not qualify, but they do get included.
Each of the services you mention are available to all citizens regardless of qualification, everyone in the US is guaranteed postal service, protection by the military (including National Guard) and the interstate highway system. Contrary to what the PP I responded to said, there are qualifications for the FARMS program required. In the state of Minnesota, they use the USDA guidelines on income to determine who qualifies. It is based on number of household members and guideline household income. Not everyone qualifies for FARMS, even if more people than intended to qualify. It isn't just those who apply are automatically accepted. The FARMS program is not socialism. The PP who is suggesting such does not know what socialism truly is.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:55
Subject: Re:She picked Tim
Anonymous wrote: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.
Citations needed
Charlie Kirk or some other dropout they all worship, told them.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:52
Subject: She picked Tim
Imagine being a MAGA and trying to convince anyone that you support Trump because he understands struggling and living paycheck-to-paycheck. Liars.
You have no reason to support him that doesn't make you look awful, and that doesn't mean you're expected to be a Democrat. Just stop trying to pretend your reasons for supporting such a corrupt, odious creature aren't insidious in nature.
You have no reason to support him that doesn't make you look awful, and that doesn't mean you're expected to be a Democrat. Just stop trying to pretend your reasons for supporting such a corrupt, odious creature aren't insidious in nature.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:51
Subject: She picked Tim
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.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:46
Subject: She picked Tim
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 agree.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:46
Subject: She picked Tim
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.
But JD Vance brings in the eyeliner-wearing, couch-humping, slightly light in the loafer, incel-douchebag contingent and does it very strongly!
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:43
Subject: She picked Tim
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 make, 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???
Same applies to food stamps....everyone should get food stamps then?
Apologies - corrections to typos made above.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:42
Subject: She picked Tim
Just an FYI: There is no difference between a Trump and a Kardashian. Both wealthy via celebrity.
Trump was an IMAGE, that's why he had to get his money from shady characters (after blowing daddy's money) and real titans of business thought he was a clown.
You should be ashamed even trying to mention liberal celebrities simply expressing political views because we don't vote for them, when you shame the party of Lincoln with the buffoons you've elected or run for office.
Trump was an IMAGE, that's why he had to get his money from shady characters (after blowing daddy's money) and real titans of business thought he was a clown.
You should be ashamed even trying to mention liberal celebrities simply expressing political views because we don't vote for them, when you shame the party of Lincoln with the buffoons you've elected or run for office.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:40
Subject: She picked Tim
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.
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:39
Subject: She picked Tim
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?
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:38
Subject: She picked Tim
It's hilarious for any Repub to have the audacity to mention a celebrity like Joy Behar (who I happen to dislike) and then stupidly act like we get our views from her or any celebrity when your side will vote for the likes of Herschel Walker or human ashtray Kid Rock. The mere mention of the latter potentially running in MI got MAGAs shootin' in the air like Yosemite Sam.
How do Republicans have the nerve to even mention celebrities when a damned reality star and rapist is now the leader of the Republican Party?
How do Republicans have the nerve to even mention celebrities when a damned reality star and rapist is now the leader of the Republican Party?
Anonymous
08/09/2024 13:36
Subject: She picked Tim
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.
I am asian american (daughter of immigrants) living is a big city and professional, and I love Walz. My husband is also a lawyer living in a big city, but his parents are from rural Ohio and they adore Walz too. He has so much crossover appeal. He grew up middleclass and rural and is a hunter, but is also an empathetic teacher/coach who now lives in a city and has traveled the world. He is a proud IVF dad who experienced 7 years of infertility before his wife got pregnant through IVF with their first child. He has many friends on both sides of the aisle and the full spectrum of democratic leaders support him too (he is beloved by democrats from Bernie Sanders to Shapiro to Joe Manchin). He doesn't talk down to people. He is authentic and kind. I am very impressed with his ability to generate excitement across many different types of people.