XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: super70s@super70s.invalid   
      
   In article <10mfcch$2ugse$14@dont-email.me>,   
    Pretti dumb  wrote:   
      
   Well aren't we 2 cute by 1/2.   
      
   > On 2/10/26 12:36 AM, super70s wrote:   
   > > On 2026-02-09 23:59:47 +0000, Promises Promises said:   
   > >   
   > >> Thomas Kane, an education expert at Harvard, believes that the national   
   > >> gloom about education is overdone, partly because the three out-   
   > >> performers show what is possible, just as earlier periods of improvement   
   > >> in Massachusetts, Florida and Tennessee underscored the power of   
   > >> evidence-based policies and meticulous execution.   
   > >>   
   > >> “"States around the country have a lot to learn from what Mississippi,   
   > >> Alabama and Louisiana are doing,”" he said.   
   > >>   
   > >> "We liberals need to wake up to the reality that we are being   
   > >> outperformed   
   > >> on education, opportunity and racial equity -- supposedly our issues. As   
   > >> recently as 2019, blue states had better average test scores than red   
   > >> states, after adjusting for demographics; now, red states are mostly   
   > >> ahead. We used to say that education was the civil rights issue of the   
   > >> 21st century, and if so, we should be ashamed that by that metric,   
   > >> Mississippi Republicans are ahead of California Democrats. If we care   
   > >> about kids, we must be relentlessly empirical, and that must mean a   
   > >> willingness to learn from red states."   
   > >>   
   > >> Kane said something you don’t expect to hear from a Harvard professor:   
   > >> "“I   
   > >> hope that there are lots of governors that are looking at Mississippi and   
   > >> saying, ‘Look, I want us to be next.’”"   
   > >   
   > > Are you fine with states giving $7,000 or more of your tax money to   
   > > mostly already well off families to privately school each of their kids?   
   >   
   > If they're as well off as you claim, it's more likely "their" money as   
   > opposed to "your" money. Your argument overlooks that those families are   
   > already subsidizing the system through taxes without using it.   
      
   Well even some Republicans who represent smaller counties in my state   
   are against these school voucher scams because it's taking funding from   
   the public schools where they are.   
      
   > Universal choice isn't about handouts—it's about returning control to   
   parents   
   > and letting competition drive better outcomes for all kids.   
      
   If there's "competition" like a horse race that means there are winners   
   and losers, there shouldn't be any losers when it comes to eduction.   
   Every child should have the same opportunities.   
      
   > > Funny how the right throws a fit over government-backed student loans   
   > > but they gladly accept free money for their own families.   
   >   
   > Funny how the left is all about choice until it isn't.   
      
   What kind of "choice" are we talking about, are you pivoting to   
   abortion? That's a completely different matter.   
      
   > Even funnier is how somehow getting back that they paid in is "free money,"   
   > the premise being it is the government's money in the first place.   
      
   The government distributes the tax revenue for education, there's only   
   so much of it to go around.   
      
   If you want to privately school your kids knock yourself out but pay for   
   it out of your own pocket.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)