Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 07, 2024

Kamala Harris loved Tim Walz's governing record in Minnesota. His biography and record of winning tough races resonated with her. And most of all, she just really liked him.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"But several other factors were important to Harris as well, according to one of the people.

Harris appreciated Walz's two terms as governor because he had accomplishments in Minnesota that Harris wants to replicate in her presidency " access to reproductive health, paid leave, child tax credits and gun safety.

Harris was also taken with Walz's biography " a former high school teacher, a football coach and a veteran who flipped a Republican-leaning district in 2006 " which she believes will play well in all three of the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, including his win as a House member in a Republican district."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-06 05:58 PM | Reply

I served with Tim Walz as a Republican in the House. He'll be a good vice president
More than ever, America needs a normal guy like Tim Walz to help lead our nation and bring us together

Democratic vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is a normal guy. I say this as a former Republican representative who served with Tim in Congress. In these times of bitter political division, America needs someone who can calmly and humbly serve the nation without all the unnecessary shouting and bluster that too often defines our politics today.

Tim and I represented different political parties " he as a Democrat, and I as a Republican " yet we found common ground and worked together on numerous issues for the betterment of our constituents and our nation. More than ever, America just needs a normal guy to help lead our nation and bring us together. I'm excited Vice President Kamala Harris has selected Tim as her running mate.

www.foxnews.com

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-08-06 06:03 PM | Reply

Why Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz

Because he became Black!

#3 | Posted by censored at 2024-08-06 06:35 PM | Reply

He gave a really good speech, as did she, just now.

I can see why she picked him... and Shapiro is still going to be helping her in Penn.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can see why she picked him... and Shapiro is still going to be helping her in Penn.

And Whitmer will be helping them in Michigan.

And Kelly will be helping them in Arizona.

And Buttigieg will be helping them on Fox News and in the media.

And Cooper will be helping them in North Carolina.

Choose the most popular Democrats all over America and fill in the blank with their names, helping the ticket in their states and districts, rinse and repeat.

Let's go!

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-08-06 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How many Democrats have endorsed DonOLD COWard?

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-06 08:18 PM | Reply

She chose him because he's far left on policy and is anti-Israel.

#7 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-08-07 11:50 AM | Reply

You cant' go wrong with a command Sargent Major.

#8 | Posted by fresno500 at 2024-08-07 12:07 PM | Reply

She chose him because he's far left on policy and is anti-Israel.

#7 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-08-07 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag

I figured it was because he let Minnesota burn for 4 days. Either way the Democrats absolutely do have an Israel problem... Just ask Jamal Bowmen and Cori Bush, both were replaced with AIPAC candidates in the recent primaries.

#9 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-07 02:48 PM | Reply

She chose him because he's far left on policy and is anti-Israel.

#7 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2024-08-07 11:50 AM | REPLY | FLAG GFY

Free school meals is hardly far left... it's a good idea

I don't think he is anti-Israel as much as he is anti-xtian agenda of assisting gawd in bringing about the second coming of Jayzus and religious whack jobs dictating the international agenda.

You blame it all on the Muslims... meanwhile, Evangelicals are licking their chops.

#10 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-08-07 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Free school meals is hardly far left... it's a good idea

#10 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-08-07 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yall trot that same old ---- out like someone did away with free school lunches. If that's the best you have, Kamala is toast. His lies about his service are definitely going to haunt him with the older crowd. Enjoy your pep rally because when the debates get here it's all over.

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-07 03:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Yall trot that same old ---- out like someone did away with free school lunches."

Facts are such stubborn things, eh? Or is it you are just too stubborn to learn any?

A 2025 budget proposal backed by 170 House Republicans would nix a universal free school lunch program.

Only nine states provide free school lunch to all students right now.

There are only nine states that provide free school lunch to all students regardless of their status, according to the NYC Food Policy Center at Hunter College. States with universal free lunch include California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Vermont.

www.businessinsider.com

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-07 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | Posted by BellRinger

What is he far left on exactly?

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-07 03:41 PM | Reply

-Free school meals is hardly far left... it's a good idea

For every kid?

You want your taxes to pay for my kid's free lunch?

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 03:47 PM | Reply

I'd prefer my taxes paid for your kids free lunches rather than funding bombs to drop on Palestinian kids for no reason.

We all have our own priorities. I guess

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-08-07 03:50 PM | Reply

You want your taxes to pay for my kid's free lunch?

Yes? Kids eating food is actually a good thing.

I'd also love for my taxes to pay for your paid parental leave, along with everyone else's, because i've read the literature on how much that benefits both children and the economy in the long term.

You're welcome?

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-07 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My point is you want to pay for every kids's free lunch or just those who qualify for free or reduced cost lunches.

All kids or just those who need the assistance?

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 03:59 PM | Reply

For every kid?

You want your taxes to pay for my kid's free lunch?

#14 | Posted by eberly

Gladly. Children can't learn when they're hungry.

Most importantly, making sure no child goes hungry is the moral thing to do.

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-07 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

-I'd also love for my taxes to pay for your paid parental leave,

How would that work? The government would pay my employer my wages while I'm on parental leave?

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 04:05 PM | Reply

#14 | Posted by eberly

One thing I will say on that is it helps remove a stigma from kids who don't deserve one because they are poor. I work with many people that have been or still fall into the working poor and receive assistance and let's be honest that is because of corporate greed and they chose to be right wing breeders. I won't begrudge their kids because of it though.

But as for your kids? I might make an exception since you seem to be requesting it.

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-07 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Dare I say the Christian thing.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-07 04:10 PM | Reply

you want to pay for every kids's free lunch or just those who qualify for free or reduced cost lunches.

I agree there are people who scam the system. Absolutely there are. They're usually the wealthy. ("Not paying taxes makes me smart!"-Trump)

But, I believe parents who can afford to provide their children with lunch, do.

I went to school everyday with a sack lunch. Some of my friends did as well. Kids getting food from the cafeteria had money or vouchers their parents had paid for at the start of the year.

If there were kids getting meals for free, we weren't talking about it.

But I'm glad they were getting food to eat.

Punishing people for being poor is a horrible exercise Republicans relish in.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-08-07 04:11 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by eberly

That is an option or like in other places around the world your company pays it.

#23 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-07 04:12 PM | Reply

20

FWIW, I support school lunch programs...the breakfasts as well.

But my kids have never known who of their friends are on free lunches and who isn't.

you can't tell when they are going through the line. At least that's how it's been at their schools. Not sure there is a stigma attached to it but I can't speak for every school.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 04:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How would [parental leave] work?

Most the rest of the developed world provides for parental leave.

They use their taxes more efficiently that we do.

We give all our taxes to corporations and the military industrial complex.

Other nations give their taxes back to their citizenry.

It's incredible what could be done will all the taxes our government collects.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-08-07 04:16 PM | Reply

23

my company does have a parental leave program. 2 weeks....and the dads all take it from what I see.

The moms get the 2 weeks and we have a pretty generous sick/vacation accruals which allows moms to take 8-12 weeks easy....even longer.

But Joe mentioned paying taxes for parental leave which is why I asked.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 04:18 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Dare I say the Christian thing.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete

Certainly.

But lots who call themselves are hypocrites who gleefully vote for politicians who say we can't afford school lunch programs but slash taxes for billionaires. It reminds me of the parable of the beggar outside the gate of a rich man who wouldn't feed him.

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-07 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My point is you want to pay for every kids's free lunch or just those who qualify for free or reduced cost lunches.
All kids or just those who need the assistance?

Everybody.

The additional cost of imposing an administrative burden, processing paperwork, etc, along with the number of kids that pushes out of the program because their parents can't do it right, or are just beyond the margin (but still hungry for whatever reason), isn't worth it. Just feed the damn kids.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-07 04:24 PM | Reply

How would that work? The government would pay my employer my wages while I'm on parental leave?
#19 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Bro i'm not doing this for you. These programs already exist in places like Minnesota and you can go look up how it works if you're actually curious about it. I suspect you're trying to use your own failure to understand how things work as a suggestion that they don't work, but please prove me wrong and go learn something.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-07 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-07 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag

Some people don't need free lunches for their children. Free/reduced lunches are available for children in all states if the family has under a set income. What you referenced is a political football - nothing more.

#30 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-08-07 04:34 PM | Reply

-These programs already exist in places like Minnesota and you can go look up how it works if you're actually curious about it.

The one in Minnesota doesn't start for a while but thanks for referencing it.

apnews.com

You could have attached a link that that one in less time you spent accusing me of something not remotely true.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 04:42 PM | Reply

Why wouldn't she pick Walz?

He's not only highly qualified but likable.

#32 | Posted by Tor at 2024-08-07 04:47 PM | Reply

All kids or just those who need the assistance?
#17 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 03:59 PM | Reply

This is actually an interesting question because it highlights the different ways of spending public resources. Do we spend public resources on Programs, or do we spend them on administering/enforcing limitations to programs? It probably doesn't exist, but I'd love to see an analysis of costs to administer/enforce limitations to these programs. If a state is saving $2M on school lunches by disallowing non-poor kids free lunch but spending $3M to fund the enforcement of limitations for these non-poor kids, I'd rather the state just give all the kids a free lunch and save the $1M.

I do believe some studies have been done on, say, drug testing for welfare recipients and have not been found to save money. It'd be interesting to see if the same ROI (or lack of ROI) existed by having these limitations in place.

#33 | Posted by bartimus at 2024-08-07 05:37 PM | Reply

not remotely true

My bad then. It's a tactic i see a lot - questioning how a good thing would work as a way of implying that it wouldn't - so i assumed i was seeing it again. My mistake.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-07 05:43 PM | Reply

no worries, Joe. I'll ask questions at times that come with a hint of suspicion that I don't really agree with someone because I don't necessarily agree with them. I don't know they're wrong either....hence, the questions.

Sometimes my questions are asked because the poster I'm addressing has made a rather specific and bold assertion......so I like to have fun with those.

33 - great question.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 06:01 PM | Reply

"Some people don't need free lunches for their children."

And some people do. If you don't then leave it for those who do.

"Free/reduced lunches are available for children in all states if the family has under a set income."

Income/poverty rates are a joke.

...

What you referenced is a political football - nothing more.

#30 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You brought up. You threw that football. I intercepted it and ran it for a touchdown.

And you were so upset you tried to tear down the goalpost.

I love football metaphors.

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-07 06:12 PM | Reply

I went and looked and was surprised to learn how many states have implemented free lunches for everyone and the states currently considering it.

Admittingly, it was a longer list than I thought.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-07 06:23 PM | Reply

#30

Thank God you don't have kids, you mumbling pea-brained douchebag.

#38 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-07 08:45 PM | Reply

It probably doesn't exist, but I'd love to see an analysis of costs to administer/enforce limitations to these programs.

There's actually a decent amount of literature out there on this. Universal free school meals is shown to both (1) reduce the cost of program administration, and (2) reduce the per-meal cost in both large and medium schools as they can better benefit from economies of scale.

I would personally argue that even without those benefits it would be worth spending the money on universal free school meals, as they are shown to improve academic performance, boost attendance and graduation rates, and reduce the stigma associated with participation. Luckily the economics are also on my side!

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-08 10:37 AM | Reply

#26. Two weeks is a joke for maternal and paternal leave. It should be a paid 60 days. Each. 90 days ideally.

I had to burn my leaves to do it, and so did my wife because this countries priorities are a joke, but we each took 6 weeks off set for each kid. She'd take the first 6 weeks then I took the second six weeks. That made it so we weren't looking for care until our babies were 3 months. Ideally? It would be 3 months each and the babies were 6 months before needing outside care.

If a company needs to drop from 1 billion in profit to 900 million to pay for it as mandated by the government, I'm good with that.

#40 | Posted by ABH at 2024-08-09 01:09 PM | Reply

For every kid?

You want your taxes to pay for my kid's free lunch?

#14 | Posted by eberly

If you kid needs a meal, yes. 10000%

It just baffles me how people think posting the ten commandments in school while refusing to feed hungry school children is what Jesus would want.

#41 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-08-09 01:26 PM | Reply

"You want your taxes to pay for my kid's free lunch?"

Why stop there?

As a childless couple, the bride and I subsidize parents all over the place:
EITC
CTC
ACTC
AOC
Child Care Credit
HOH Status

...ALL child-rearing subsidies/breaks.

And I didn't even mention my property taxes paying for public schools!

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-08-09 01:35 PM | Reply

-If you kid needs a meal, yes. 10000%

I can afford to buy my kids lunch.

you still want to pay for them?

It baffles me people can manage to ---- down their leg over an unbelievably easy question.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-09 01:40 PM | Reply

I can afford to buy my kids lunch.

you still want to pay for them?

Studies have found that it costs less to feed every student for free than it does to pay the additional administrative costs to categorize students and collect fees, which makes a lot of sense when you consider the scale of larger schools and districts.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-08-09 02:10 PM | Reply

44

which studies?

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2024-08-09 02:19 PM | Reply

#44

After a certain point, cost per serving goes down as servings increase.

It's just as easy to feed 120 kids as it is 160. Considering kids that pay are a minority of kids, I doubt the school covering them makes much difference.

As you mentioned, including paperwork, book keeping, etc., mine as well just feed em all for free.

#46 | Posted by horstngraben at 2024-08-09 02:26 PM | Reply

Considering kids that pay are a minority of kids, I doubt the school covering them makes much difference.

That too. Even in the wealthiest of public school districts there still are quite a few students receiving free school meals.

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-08-09 02:30 PM | Reply

#45

Not a study in itself, but a confirmation:

First, trying to save money by limiting which children you feed turns out to be expensive and cumbersome; it requires that school districts deal with reams of paperwork as they try to determine which children are eligible. It also imposes a burden on parents, requiring that they demonstrate their neediness.

Additionally, restricting free meals to children whose parents can prove their poverty creates a stigma that can deter students from getting aid even when they're entitled to receive it. I know about this effect from family history: My mother, who grew up in the Depression, used to talk about her shame at not being able to afford new shoes because her parents, although just as poor as her classmates' parents, couldn't bring themselves to apply for government assistance.

And it's not as if feeding children is prohibitively expensive. So if you want to make sure that children get enough to eat, having schools offer free meals to all their students, without an income test, would seem to be simple common sense.

But Republicans in general aren't on board. The Minnesota law that Walz signed passed essentially along party lines.

Most Americans support providing all students with meals, regardless of their income, just as most Americans now support the Affordable Care Act, which Trump will very likely again try to destroy if returned to office.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-08-09 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" It also imposes a burden on parents, requiring that they demonstrate their neediness."

Good God, there's a jillion hours of parents' valuable time saved RIGHT THRERE! And something that NEVER shows up on the balance sheets.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-08-09 04:41 PM | Reply

You shouldn't even have to prove that meals cost less when you feed everyone due to economies of scale. It's okay that this might actually cost some money. The benefits of doing it, in terms of improved school performance, attendance/graduation rates, and removal of social stigma of participation all make it worth whatever the cost is. Not to mention the fact that punishing a hungry child for their parents' failure to correctly submit paperwork is an insanely monstrous thing to do a "first world" country.

If a kid is hungry, at the place they are legally obligated to be all day, they should be able to eat. Period.

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2024-08-09 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#50 | Posted by JOE

So-called Christians should read Matthew 25. They're either adhering to what the namesake taught or they aren't Christians.

Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version
The Sheep and the Goats

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

#51 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-09 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Talking about hypocrites, not people who actually adhere to the tenets of love, compassion, and service to our fellow humans.

#52 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-08-09 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#52

AU...

"Why Are Christians Still Voting For Trump?"

www.youtube.com

Rev Ed

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2024-08-09 05:26 PM | Reply

"The benefits of doing it, in terms of improved school performance, attendance/graduation rates, and removal of social stigma of participation all make it worth whatever the cost is. "

And if they are too hungry to learn they will likely grow up to be an angry Proud Boof.

That right there is worth the cost. But no wonder republicans are against it.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-09 05:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort