Kim Reynolds shows Iowa's children her love

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
127,550
124,940
113
Is this statement true?

Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, Gov. Kim Reynolds has approved more than $500 million in state and federal funding to increase access to child care across the state

And then I found this


Business incentive grants aren't going to the people who need the support, spud. They are handouts to people who want to start a daycare that the poorest Iowans cannot afford.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
Is this statement true?

Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, Gov. Kim Reynolds has approved more than $500 million in state and federal funding to increase access to child care across the state

And then I found this

This makes sense as an argument only if you are dumb enough to think $26M solves the child care issue in Iowa. It doesn't.

What is your rationale to explain why turning down $30M for child care makes sense? I can hardly wait.
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
11,474
4,559
113
This makes sense as an argument only if you are dumb enough to think $26M solves the child care issue in Iowa. It doesn't.

What is your rationale to explain why turning down $30M for child care makes sense? I can hardly wait.
And the 500 million?
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
LOL - OK. So apparently you agree that the additional $30M from the Fed is unneeded. That it was prudent to turn it down.

And you realize, I hope, that the vast majority of that $500M in funding was due to Covid relief, right? It certainly wasn't because Kim pushed for that kind of funding.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk

DooBi

HR Heisman
Sep 18, 2006
7,610
8,226
113
LOL - OK. So apparently you agree that the additional $30M from the Fed is unneeded. That it was prudent to turn it down.

And you realize, I hope, that the vast majority of that $500M in funding was due to Covid relief, right? It certainly wasn't because Kim pushed for that kind of funding.
I thought the goalposts moving thread was yesterday in the 20 years ago today thread.
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
11,474
4,559
113
LOL - OK. So apparently you agree that the additional $30M from the Fed is unneeded. That it was prudent to turn it down.

And you realize, I hope, that the vast majority of that $500M in funding was due to Covid relief, right? It certainly wasn't because Kim pushed for that kind of funding.
if you want to move the goalposts fine, but the theme of this thread is that Kim turned down 30 million dollars and hates kids, and because of that she is now a c&*t. I provide links that over 530 million dollars was directed towards child care under Kim Reynolds, but somehow that is not enough we needed 30million more. Maybe for once you try looking at the overall picture instead of the black and white D vs R glasses you have on all the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkman34

WDSMHAWK

HR MVP
Jun 30, 2019
1,457
3,208
113
West Des Moines
If a liberal posts something about Kim Reynolds it more than likely is not true. She is to them what Pelosi is to the right.

The Right spread conspiracy theories about the Pelosi's that led to one of their followers trying to kill Nancy and put her 80 year old husband in the hospital

Hrot makes mean posts about Kim and the awful job she's done as Governor.

Take off your red color glasses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris

BGHAWK

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
18,244
11,135
113
I thought she was pro life. Guess not. Fooled Iowa voters again.

If she could use it for child care for those attending private schools she would be all in.
 

Jerome Silberman

HR Legend
Oct 30, 2009
12,942
18,040
113
if you want to move the goalposts fine, but the theme of this thread is that Kim turned down 30 million dollars and hates kids, and because of that she is now a c&*t. I provide links that over 530 million dollars was directed towards child care under Kim Reynolds, but somehow that is not enough we needed 30million more. Maybe for once you try looking at the overall picture instead of the black and white D vs R glasses you have on all the time
That's not the theme at all. The theme is the chief executive of Iowa left 27MM on the table for no discernable reason. Whether you agree with the federal bill that spent the money or not, it behooves our Governor to make sure "Iowa's share" as been acquired. Securing funding is one of her most important jobs and she dropped the 27MM ball on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

fredjr82

HR Legend
Gold Member
Nov 13, 2007
23,895
14,260
113
That would be ...............unsurprising....

The application process calls for states to submit a letter on the governor’s letterhead designating the state agency that will have responsibility for administering the grant.

Reynolds’ office, however, didn’t provide the letter and declined to pursue the grant, despite recent assurances from federal officials that qualified applications were likely to be approved.

Celsi, who sits on the ECI board, said that last week she approached fellow board member Kelly Garcia, who heads the state agency that handled the application. Celsi said she asked Garcia why Iowa was giving up $30 million in badly needed federal money for Iowa families.

“Kelly claimed she did not receive the actual, filled-out application in time to review it,” Celsi said. “So, basically, a lack of time to review it was her explanation.”

Link
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Joes Place

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
if you want to move the goalposts fine, but the theme of this thread is that Kim turned down 30 million dollars and hates kids, and because of that she is now a c&*t. I provide links that over 530 million dollars was directed towards child care under Kim Reynolds, but somehow that is not enough we needed 30million more. Maybe for once you try looking at the overall picture instead of the black and white D vs R glasses you have on all the time
Do you agree that she should have turned the $30M down? If so, why?

Your claims of her providing that funding is a huge stretch, BTW.
 

Huey Grey

HR King
Jan 15, 2013
50,516
73,937
113
To get all this straight:

Reynolds takes Federal money to help kids.

Pretends it came from her.

Gets busted

And then decides she would rather to stop helping kids instead of giving credit to the federal government for helping Iowans.

What an adult we have in Des Moines.
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
11,474
4,559
113
Do you agree that she should have turned the $30M down? If so, why?

Your claims of her providing that funding is a huge stretch, BTW.
Maybe if more governors turned down money that wasn't REALLY needed we could get our spending under control; so was it REALLY needed?????? you just got 530 million, is that not enough? If it wasn't needed then it went to a state that needed it.
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,604
39,859
113
you can’t always get what you want!
Maybe if more governors turned down money that wasn't REALLY needed we could get our spending under control; so was it REALLY needed?????? you just got 530 million, is that not enough? If it wasn't needed then it went to a state that needed it.
You don’t “need” clean water either, I guess. This money was distributed to assist states in transitioning through the inconveniences of Covid abd to assist states in accommodating new requirements the the pandemic left behind. And RN, het sending the money back to the Feds “saves” the taxpayers nothing...the money has been budgeted and dispersed. The $$ Kim “returned” were distributed elsewhere to states thT would use the funding. Her act makes absolutely NO sense at at, other than it was a thinly veiled attempt to make (a rather poor) political statement.
I remember once at a divorce hearing I was involved with, her attorney gave me a check, and I had no idea why. I asked my Ttorney what to do with it and he said, “Cash it!” I did so....and 35 years or so later, I still have no idea what the check was for.
 

MitchLL

HR Legend
Dec 26, 2018
23,112
37,165
113
I thought she was pro life. Guess not. Fooled Iowa voters again.

If she could use it for child care for those attending private schools she would be all in.
Give Dim Kim time.

With the newly elected Iowa AG, they're probably planning now how to divert funding to her wealthy political donors.

Scheming corruption will reach new heights now that there is only one State elected Democrat left in Iowa govt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGHAWK

Huey Grey

HR King
Jan 15, 2013
50,516
73,937
113
Maybe if more governors turned down money that wasn't REALLY needed we could get our spending under control; so was it REALLY needed?????? you just got 530 million, is that not enough? If it wasn't needed then it went to a state that needed it.
Iowa keeps falling in educational standards. Whatever Reynolds is doing is likely not working.
 

Jerome Silberman

HR Legend
Oct 30, 2009
12,942
18,040
113
Maybe if more governors turned down money that wasn't REALLY needed we could get our spending under control; so was it REALLY needed?????? you just got 530 million, is that not enough? If it wasn't needed then it went to a state that needed it.
The money is spent by the time it gets to that point. FFS, even Ron Paul understood this.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
Maybe if more governors turned down money that wasn't REALLY needed we could get our spending under control; so was it REALLY needed?????? you just got 530 million, is that not enough? If it wasn't needed then it went to a state that needed it.
So you are saying that Iowa has ample child care for working families and has no need for anything else?

Likewise you are tacitly saying Iowa has no needs in any other area as Kim could have allocated the $20M elsewhere.
 

DooBi

HR Heisman
Sep 18, 2006
7,610
8,226
113
Dems: Red states are money suckers that take in more than they give!!!!! Rabble rabble!!!!

Also dems: God damn Kim Reynolds isn't taking in more money!!!! Rabble rabble!!!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
11,474
4,559
113
So you are saying that Iowa has ample child care for working families and has no need for anything else?

Likewise you are tacitly saying Iowa has no needs in any other area as Kim could have allocated the $20M elsewhere.
So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
11,474
4,559
113
So you are saying that Iowa has ample child care for working families and has no need for anything else?

Likewise you are tacitly saying Iowa has no needs in any other area as Kim could have allocated the $20M elsewhere.
Name a state that doesn’t have some problems. Name a state that pays enough money to 100% solve the problem. Hint they don’t because money doesn’t grow on trees. The sooner you and the rest of the country understands this, then we will all be in better financial situations
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
74,604
39,859
113
you can’t always get what you want!
So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you
It could have been, I guess…but it was equally distributed (per state or per capital, I dont know) lump sum for states “discretionary” use with guidelines…..but it had to be spent….unlike Kim latching on the $2B in Fed funds and claiming her budgetary expertise was the reason for the state’s “surplus”…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

hawkjt

HR Legend
Feb 14, 2004
33,557
3,103
113
Why not fund reduced cost preschool for lower income children?
Kim does no t want to help lower income citizens is the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you
Are you dense? Of course the money Kim actually allocated could have been used somewhere else if she had accepted the Federal money. Or, she could have used both to really attack the issue. Instead she gave away $$. So unless you think there are no other issues in Iowa that need funding, she ****ed up.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,335
23,051
113
Name a state that doesn’t have some problems. Name a state that pays enough money to 100% solve the problem. Hint they don’t because money doesn’t grow on trees. The sooner you and the rest of the country understands this, then we will all be in better financial situations
Which is EXACTLY why it was foolish for Kim to refuse this funding.
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
25,796
20,886
113
So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you

You'll never be able to keep up with these hogs at the trough RN,.. Their approach is to consume everything in sight today and not worry about tomorrow.
 

Latest posts