2nd thread on this topic that will now die an unceremoniously quick death.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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2nd thread on this topic that will now die an unceremoniously quick death.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.
This is your go to when you get pwned. You have nothing substantial to offer a discussion most of the time...which is for the best because you're wrong 99% of it.Derp
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
Gov. Reynolds awards $26.6M in Child Care Business Incentive Grants | Iowa Workforce Development
Office of the Governor For Immediate Release Date: September 13, 2022 Contact: Alex Murphy, (515) 802-0986, Alex.Murphy@Governor.Iowa.Gov Printer Friendly Version (PDF) Gov. Reynolds awards $26.6M in Child Care Business Incentive Grants DES MOINES, IOWA – Governor Kim Reynolds today awarded...www.iowaworkforcedevelopment.gov
I'm still baffled by this. What is the rational for this beyond Reynolds being an asshole?
That would be ...............unsurprising....I thought I read where some claimed the State didn't file the paperwork on time/correctly
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.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
Gov. Reynolds awards $26.6M in Child Care Business Incentive Grants | Iowa Workforce Development
Office of the Governor For Immediate Release Date: September 13, 2022 Contact: Alex Murphy, (515) 802-0986, Alex.Murphy@Governor.Iowa.Gov Printer Friendly Version (PDF) Gov. Reynolds awards $26.6M in Child Care Business Incentive Grants DES MOINES, IOWA – Governor Kim Reynolds today awarded...www.iowaworkforcedevelopment.gov
And the 500 million?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.
Link?
Iowa to lose millions in child care funding
The governor's office told the Iowa Capitol Dispatch the loss of that money is the result of a deliberate decision.www.kcci.com
LOL - OK. So apparently you agree that the additional $30M from the Fed is unneeded. That it was prudent to turn it down.Iowa to lose millions in child care funding
The governor's office told the Iowa Capitol Dispatch the loss of that money is the result of a deliberate decision.www.kcci.com
I thought the goalposts moving thread was yesterday in the 20 years ago today thread.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 timeLOL - 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 a liberal posts something about Kim Reynolds it more than likely is not true. She is to them what Pelosi is to the right.
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.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 would be ...............unsurprising....
What movement? Do you agree that Kim should turn down this funding?I thought the goalposts moving thread was yesterday in the 20 years ago today thread.
Do you agree that she should have turned the $30M down? If so, why?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
You shouldn’t use the term smart enough under any circumstances.Most Iowans are not smart enough to understand this until it is too late.
That's because I didn't say providingDo 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.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.
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.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.
Give Dim Kim time.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.
Iowa keeps falling in educational standards. Whatever Reynolds is doing is likely not working.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.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.
Hey that's what she has claimed and you are defending.That's because I didn't say providing
So you are saying that Iowa has ample child care for working families and has no need for anything else?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 now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with youSo 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 situationsSo 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.
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”…..So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you
Why not fund reduced cost preschool for lower income children?
Kim does no t want to help lower income citizens is the answer.
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.So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you
Which is EXACTLY why it was foolish for Kim to refuse this funding.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
So now the money could have been allocated to other places. I can’t keep up with you