- His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
- No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
- Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor’s mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
This guy is doing a great job of making everyone realize just how fucking weird the cons truly are.
And I’m loving every minute of that. I’ve been calling them creepy weirdos for years - after hearing it said on The Professional Left.
I’m glad this guy is taking it to the national level. The Republicans are getting weirder and weirder by the minute and it’s about high time someone with a big platform started pointing out what is so obvious to so many people.
How much time have they spent on attacking a woman from a country they probably couldn’t find on a map and that is in a sport they now have to suddenly pretend to care about (do they truly care about any women’s sports, if we are being honest?). Way to go, guys. People call you weird and you and get even fucking weirder. 🤣
This guy is doing a great job of making everyone realize just how fucking weird the cons truly are.
Idk if not having a 401k is a sign of normalcy. I think it is illustrative of the state of the Minnesota economy, relative to the hyper-financialized acceleration in states like New York, Florida, Texas, and California. A statewide elected official who isn’t a former hedge fund manager or white shoe lawyer is a refreshing change of pace. But when the last couple of years have seen double-digit growth in every major stock index while inflation raced to match, it’s honestly kinda scary to imagine a guy who doesn’t have any savings in equity.
I hope this is a sign of a politician who hopes to change the underlying nature of the American economy and not just a guy who didn’t think to buy in during the biggest market boom since '29.
Idk if not having a 401k is a sign of normalcy.
It used to be pretty fucking normal until they got rid of all the pensions. That’s what Tim’s using for retirement instead of playing the casino stock market.
It used to be pretty fucking normal until they got rid of all the pensions.
And if we’re getting a pension-friendly VP, I’m here for it. But I’m still waiting to see what a Harris/Walz economic policy looks like.
That’s what Tim’s using for retirement instead of playing the
casinostock market.
My experience with pensions has mostly been through my parents/in-laws. And the experience I’ve had with pensions is that companies/governments can just kinda take them away again by pleading poverty during a period of historic economic expansion.
Again, I hope Tim’s nomination implies a change in direction. But… we’ll see.
This is some bullshit. He invests heavily into private pensions, which invest heavily in the stock market.
This is like saying you don’t invest in the stock market because you have a 401k. You’re still absolutely invested in the stock market even if it’s index funds recommended by your plan administrator. Your net worth dips every time the market dips.
At least he’s not in a position to buy or sell individual stocks, but he’s still got his finances tied up in the health of the overall market, and depending on the pension funds, potentially tilted towards specific industries.
I still like the guy, and think this is an improvement over other politicians, but we need to speak honestly about it.
You make a great point, and the title of the article is misleading at best, really just plain wrong IMHO. But the title also doesn’t state he isn’t invested in the stock market, only that he doesn’t own any individual company stock.
Personally, I think this version is the most fair way for politicians. On one hand, any investment for them gives them incentive to put market health (money) over their constituents. On the other hand, investing in a 401k or mutual fund is something everyone should do, how else will you afford retirement?
Hi, I respectuflly disagree. The reason this is significant is becuase he isn’t influenced due to his ownership in any stocks. Of course he, like anyone else, is concerned about the overall state of the economy.
Its also different from a 401k which is a defined contribution plan. In a defined contribution plan, account holder makes their own investment choices but are often limited in those choices. Their account balance will go up and down based on total contributions and market returns.
A pension is a defined benefit plan. In a defined benefit plan, the participant doesn’t have an account that goes up and down based on market fluctuations. Their benefit is defined regardless of these fluctuations. The onus is on the employer to ensure that the plan is correctly funded which is a result of market conditions and ‘employer only’ contributions to the plan.
The republicans at a loss on how to attack this guy and he is just rolling them and their ideas. Kamala must be thrilled.
Vance is attempting to attack him for “stolen valor,” implying Walz retired from his 20 year service (as a Sergeant Major) just before the war in Iraq happened, calling Walz a coward.
Let’s ask Donald Trump where he was when the US issued the draft for Vietnam.
The response to which is to tell people Vance is lying about how the military works. Leadership changes over rather frequently in a unit. His time was up and it was either get a new sgm slot in a different place or retire. The choice to deploy with the unit wasn’t there.
You know what really bothers me @JDVance, is when you attack a fellow veterans military service. I respect your service and the service of @GovTimWalz and all of those honorably discharged. He was eligible for retirement after 24 years and submitted his retirement paperwork before his unit received orders (or even warning orders) to deploy and then he continued his service as a member of congress. If they needed him to stay in his unit there is a mechanism called, “stop-loss.” Look it up. As a corporal with 4yrs of service, I highly doubt the USMC, “asked,” you to go to Iraq. They most likely, “ordered” you to go to Iraq and had you refused, you would have been thrown in the brig. Release your military record to prove the USMC, “asked” you to go. “Raise your hand if you want to go to Iraq.” It’s laughable to those of us who have served. If you win, you are next in line to be Commander in Chief and need to earn the respect of all who serve, and this is not how you do it.
https://x.com/StationCDRKelly/status/1821329527429329315
There is currently a minor attack about his, (long ago), DUI with a photo of his mugshot. But the man has long publicly owned up to it. And he learned his lesson from it and no longer drinks alcohol at all.
In fact, he signed a bill that allows for purging of certain legal records for others due to his experience in life.
It’s funny that they were worried about Shapiro being chosen. They seemed to be relieved she went with Walz. But I thought I saw Shapiro had a former aide that was accused of sexually harassment. I wonder if that’s part of the reason he wasn’t chosen, Republicans would be able to use that against him.
Yeah, I don’t know of anything specific, but the vibes I got from the days leading up to the decision (and then the decision itself), was that they found dirt, or at least something the right would turn into “dirt,” while vetting Shapiro.
I’ve got basically nothing to back that up, just the impression that I got.
she looked very happy when he was speaking at the events. he’s very good at stump speeches so he kind of makes up for her in that regard. she’s not that bad either by the way; much better than she used to be 4 years ago that’s for sure. but he has a certain extra energy in his speeches that upstages her a bit, but i don’t think in a bad way.
pensions are essentially stocks in most cases
The money to find pensions may come from stocks or other investments, but the recipient of the pension doesn’t control those investments right? They just get the payout
Correct.
Which becomes an issue if the pension manager doesn’t properly account for market downturns etc…
Oh sure. But from a “does Tim Walz own stock” standpoint, I think it’s still justified to say “no” even if he has a pension that is backed by stocks.
On one hand that’s good. On the other hand that’s a concerning approach to financial management
Only concerning to those who control the capital (and the plebs that have been convinced that one day they will be in that position, and when that happens, they’d have reason to be concerned. Any day now).
Not everyone puts the same value on the accumulation of material things (including wealth). In fact, there are many of us who are only really interested in having the means to live a comfortable life and provide for our families.
Everything beyond that is unnecessary to us, and we find the constant, dogged pursuit of wealth at all costs, and the pure avarice that is borne (on a massive, planetary scale) because of it, to be abhorrent.
I suppose one might imagine the risk that if he doesn’t have “enough” wealth personally, he will be more susceptible to bribes. The steelman version is that he doesn’t care about money that much.
I think the bigger concern for those unaware he has a pension is that he’s bad at his finances, and possibly even a spendthrift. But with knowledge that he’s set with pensions then it makes perfect sense. I still probably would invest if I had a pension because I know how bad not doing so went for many people in the late 20th century, but especially when done out of conviction and to display unwillingness to be bribed as a politician it’s something I respect.
Yes there seem to be a lot of people of the position that having retirement investments = hoarding wealth…but the majority of us don’t get pensions and not having retirement accounts of any kind under those circumstances is horrible financial strategy if you want to do anything other than subsist after retiring.
It’s gonna shock you to find out he’s a huge proponent of sharing wealth and not hoarding it.
Good, I still would expect him to have retirement plans and the financial habits to achieve them. He’s nearing that age and once he finishes with politics should probably be looking at that.
Fortunately others have mentioned he has government pensions, which are a good financial plan for those who have access to them.
Why? I assume he’s got money in the bank and will have a government pension.
Some people don’t need to hoard as much wealth as possible, if he’s got enough to live comfortably with his family I don’t see the need to hold a ton of investments.
I’m gonna be honest sometimes I forget the government still provides pensions. I hear “no financial investments” and my brain goes to “no retirement money” because amongst many people I know that’s what that means. I don’t want my politicians to be rich or money obsessed, but I personally prefer prudent politicians. If I hear that a politician makes enough to save and chooses not to without having other financial strategies to handle retirement then I worry about how they will approach the government coffers. Not in a “spending our money on welfare” sense, but in a spending our welfare and infrastructure money that should be used as an investment in our country’s present and future on something stupid like corporate tax cuts.
And yes I get the irony there, but to me my first thought really was “oh does he not think about his own future?”
Also bonds really shouldn’t be treated like stocks. We want Americans buying bonds. They’re a literal financial investment in this country. If people stop buying American bonds get a passport now because that means they don’t trust this country is so good for it they can offer mediocre returns because the money is all but certain.
He’s completely set with pensions. And I am unsure if index funds were specifically ruled out. The article doesn’t really detail his wealth, and there’s no way someone with his intelligence and pragmatism has completely bungled his finances.
