Gov. Tim Walz doesn't own a single stock
Just a moment...
Okay yeah I'm super happy that Harris replaced Biden on the ticket and everything, but the more I learn about this guy the more I want him to be actual president. VP's certainly a good compromise for the circunstances though!
Everybody in MN has been saying Walz needs to run for president for years now. But, being a relatively unknown guy from a flyover state it was kind of a pipe dream. I'm hoping now that everyone is seeing him, getting to know him, and obviously loving him that he'll get his chance in 4 years to run for actual president.
And a great resume builder for the Democrat candidate after harris down the line.
I mean, Kamala was Joe's VP, and Joe was Barack's VP...
VP is also super good looking on a presidential resume. I could be content with 8 years of Harris then 8 years of Walz.
Yeah, he would have crushed it in the primaries. Still, he seems like a great choice for VP.
Wow. Does that mean politics is his main job? Like full time?
I didn't knew the US still has politicians like that. Most of the other clowns there seem like they treat politics as a minor side hassle.
I looked at his open secrets page, and his biggest contributes are like 5k, and an association of orthopedic surgeons was at the top of the list.
I'm honestly still shocked we got someone this "clean"
I know this is me being unhinged, but when they're that clean, I get stuck on wondering what they might be hiding. I think I'm broken, I can't accept the possibility that he might just be a good dude.
$5,000 was the most he asked for when he did a fundraiser for the Harris campaign on Monday
The incredibly high cost of running for President means that he'll be asking for more now though. Stinks that we have the system we do.
I think that might just be the limit for campaign contributions. Not sure.
Expect the corporate media to go hard against him using the "sochalist" attacks because he's already proven he can't be bought and that scares the shit out of the billionaire ruling class.
They are saying he isn't investing in "America"
He can flat out tell them that those companies aren't investing in America.
They all cry about paying taxes, they move their headquarters to "tax haven" countries as soon as they can. If the local gov't tries to get them to pay their fair share they will move the entire company and put all their workers out of a job.
They gleefully pollute the land. They do everything possible to get out of paying workers, or paying benefits.
They get laws passed so they can fire their workers without reason.
They hire workers from other countries to replace American workers and pay those workers a tiny fraction of what they pay American workers and make their American workers bend over backwards when the work is sub par.
Who is investing in America now?
Investing in America would mean sending each and every exec to jail for life when their inevitable actions are detrimental to America and those who call it their home.
They is stupid.
How can we trust him to look out for the interests of the capitalist class?
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.
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.
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.
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.
On one hand that’s good. On the other hand that’s a concerning approach to financial management
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.
He has at least 2 pensions. I think congresspeople and governors probably get something too.
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.
Yeah, he's never going to go hungry or want for medical care for the rest of his life. Like it or not, successful politicians are financially above us peons.
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.
It seems like that was more of a gesture when he took office than a financial strategy.
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.
I like the guy but isn't the Occams Razor answer that the guy making $127k/year with no mortgage DOES have investments of some kind, they're just in his wife's name or not reported for some reason?
You could have literally looked a bit into to see that neither him or his wife have any investments of any kind aside from pensions, instead of writing something like this.
Gonna need some evidence to suggest that there might be unreported items instead of just assuming that there must be something just because.
It's the Trumpy way to try to argue or make a point. Just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.
Most of it's probably landing in a high yield savings account. Some people want money for the sake of wanting more money, other people just wanna pay off their mortgage early, throw everything on autopay, and never stress about that aspect ever again
This guy is the real deal and everything, but I wouldn’t begrudge him what I have for myself, which is some investments in broad index funds, mainly. Something to rely on when I finally fuck off from the office.
Don't forget he's a former teacher and career military, he's got some pensions going
Have fun choosing when to retire based on whether the stock market recently crashed.
I knew 3 people who had to put off their retirements around 2009 so the market could recover.
There are targeted retirement funds that target a retirement year and slowly transition from stocks into bonds/less risky positions as that date approaches. Those are generally a better idea for retirement savings than broader market funds for the reason you described.
And it's not like retirement immediately liquidates your 401k. There's just some minimum that you need to take out per year which isn't very high. Roth IRA's don't have a minimum distrust requirement until after the death of the owner.
It’s as if you’ve never heard of asset allocation.
Holy shit. The man's practically a saint. All the best to him, I hope Kamala takes him to the top, because that's where he needs to be.
No I'm afraid the DNC will crush him.
The fact that someone else manages it is entirely the point. In a 401k a politician can insider trade, in a pension they typically can not.
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.
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?
I don't either. I own hundreds! Ba dum bum.
I don't think hes dumb, so the other explanation is that he's wealthy enough that he doesn't need to play the game and can do this to make a statement. Sounds like a nice place to be frankly. For the rest of us, having any money left over at all for saving and saving it in a way that is not utilizing etfs or index funds is just letting a bank extract market profits off your money at your expense. If you're not playing in the rat race I hope you have a real dull axe to grind, because you are simply opting out of what the world basically expects your finances to do.
Actually most of us work for a living and don't have the luxury of having enough money for investments to be practical in the first place, but I guess you can pretend it's necessary to get by if it makes you feel better about it.
I make a median amount by working a lot. Median is median, "most of us" just mean you don't understand stats. Most people have some savings. I'm not swimming in any pool of gold coins, but anyone with any savings at all can put it in investments. 61%.of Americans invest in stocks. Mr. Walz chooses not to and does it to make a statement as a politician. He represents the minority by doing this,. Not the majority. I respect that, but he can afford to do that. I can't. If you're not investing at all because you are not able to save anything, I hope things turn around for you soon.. That would put you in the minority, not "most of us". If you have savings and are not investing it's either being foolish with money or having an agenda like Mr. Walz. That disuades you from doing so.
This is something I can get behind for a politician
pensions are essentially stocks in most cases
where's he gonna live after he retires from politics though
In a house perhaps?
That's insane.
Like, no 401k or Roth IRA? Dang. I'm fuckin hard.
He also retired from the Army, and likely has a pension from that too.
If I could retire without needing to know the difference between ETFs and mutual funds, I would be soooo happy
I'm shocked he doesn't have an IRA (unless that doesn't count). Given his previous jobs, it passes the smell test that he doesn't have a 401k.
I'm sure his pensions are invested in a wide range of stocks and bonds, but he doesn't directly hold them.
And pension funds are generally invested broadly enough that the only way a politician could "game" them is to just improve the economy as a whole. Which is like, one of the main things people want their elected officials to do.
Military/feds have TSP, it's essentially a 401k.
If he was 20+ years military reserve he's got a lot in there. I think he started in 1981 tho. And I'm not 100% sure how long tsp has been happening
Not having retirement savings of some kind would be...not great.
But as someone else said, if he has military pension, that may be good enough.
Also Teacher's Pension
He did 20 some years in the reserves or guard.
That means he has tsp money, it's the government 401k essentially.
I mean, he might not, but it's incredibly rare not to have tsp especially after 20+ years of service.
TSP contributions for the uniformed services didn’t start until 2001, it’s optional, and he only would have had deductions when paid for his training periods or any activation periods. The disclosures say no stocks or bonds, and TSP’s investment are only in stocks and bonds.
I have tsp after four years in the early aughts
He's just like us 🥺
These disclosures are usually intended to address conflicts of interest and often exempt disclosing mortgages on your primary residence, market index funds, certain types of pensions, etc.
His teacher’s pension realistically is invested in something, but he has zero control over it. He just gets what he’s owed