Donald Trump: If Public Schools Close, Give Parents the Money for School Choice

[Swordsmyth]

President Donald Trump endorsed on Thursday the idea of giving federal funds to parents of students for a school of their choice if their local public school districts close during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump said he asked Congress to pass $105 billion in funding for schools to help them reopen promptly and safely, unless they refused to do so.

“If schools do not reopen, the funding should go to parents to send their child to public, private, charter, religious, or home school of their choice,” Trump said. “The keyword being choice. If the school is closed, the money should follow the student.”

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...school-choice/

[Sammy]

I prefer dismantling the Dep. of Education.

[euphemia]

Giving back the money would be step one.

[Anti Globalist]

Personally I hope the schools never open back up again.

[Swordsmyth]

Giving back the money would be step one.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Too many people demand we make a single leap.

[oyarde]

Danke needs a refund for his public education . They never taught him to start a fire with sticks or not to spit into the wind .

[shakey1]

Over half of my property tax goes to schools... how ‘bout a refund?

[oyarde]

Over half of my property tax goes to schools... how ‘bout a refund?

About all of mine does , but I doubt there is anything to refund . Probably still going to heat and cool the monstrous college campus like high schools , still paying the teachers , groundskeepers etc . They could at least throw me a bone and layoff all administrators .

[devil21]

Another overt federal power grab being pushed under the fake pandemic cover story. State and local taxes primarily pay for schools. What happened to the conservative position of ending the DoE? Instead, we're going to expand it even further to include direct payments to parents? I'm sure there will be no strings attached to that either...

[Brian4Liberty]

President Donald Trump endorsed on Thursday the idea of giving federal funds to parents of students for a school of their choice if their local public school districts close during the coronavirus pandemic.

Here’s a better idea. No Federal money at all.

[dannno]

Over half of my property tax goes to schools... how ‘bout a refund?

Maybe you should petition Trump to run for your Governorship in 2024.

[eleganz]

Consider it a tax refund, as long as people aren't getting back more than what was a taken from them.

I'd rather the money go back to the people than being spent by the government as we all know DoE isn't going anywhere. Saying it should all be abolished isn't doing much except pissing off those who disagree. Eventually the libertarian community will have to learn to tailor the arguments like Rand does.

[jkob]

They should completely privatize education, give the money straight to the parents and let the market work.

[Occam's Banana]

"Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

-- William Lloyd Garrison (extremist, radical and absolutist par excellence)

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Too many people demand we make a single leap.

Too many? On the contrary - we do not have nearly enough "people demand[ing] we make a single leap."

The left does not have this problem. They have a surfeit of "single leap" people.

Thus, the left has the center of gravity much more heavily weighted in its favor. That is why they are winning.
(And after all, is this not one of the chiefest reasons that you and others oppose public immigration ... ?)

The leftist "single leapers" (i.e., absolutists) may not get all that they want (at least, not immediately) - but the leftist "many steppers" (i.e., gradualists) have achieved much more success than they could have without the former. Those of you "gradualists" who oppose the left would do well to understand this dynamic and start supporting and encouraging your own "absolutists" (rather than sneering at and dismissing them).

IOW: If the "impractically idealistic" absolutists who are demanding "single leaps" stop doing so, then the "practically realistic" gradualists who are demanding "many steps" will end up as the ones the "mainstream" regards (and dismisses) as being "too extreme" ...

IOOW: The "many steps" gradualists should be more appreciative of (and grateful for) the "cover" that the "single leap" absolutists give them ...

IOOOW: Purism is practical ...

[Swordsmyth]

"Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

-- William Lloyd Garrison

Too many? On the contrary, we do not have nearly enough "people demand[ing] we make a single leap."

The left does not have this problem. They have a surfeit of "single leap" people.

Thus, the left has the center of gravity much more heavily weighted in its favor. That is why they are winning.
(And after all, is this not one of the chiefest reasons that you and others oppose public immigration ... ?)

The leftist "single leapers" (i.e., absolutists) may not get all that they want (at least, not immediately) - but the leftist "many steppers" (i.e., gradualists) have achieved much more success than they could have without the former. Those of you "gradualists" who oppose the left would do well to understand this dynamic and start supporting and encouraging your own "absolutists" (rather than sneering at and dismissing them).

IOW: If the "impractically idealistic" absolutists who are demanding "single leaps" stop doing so, then the "practically realistic" gradualists who are demanding "many steps" will end up as the ones the "mainstream" regards (and dismisses) as being "too extreme" ...

IOOW: The "many steps" gradualists should be more appreciative of (and grateful for) the "cover" that the "single leap" absolutists give them ...

IOOOW: Purism is practical ...

I will rephrase: Too many people demand we make a single leap or nothing.

[Occam's Banana]

I will rephrase: Too many people demand we make a single leap or nothing.

That's better - but ...

When it comes to shifting the center of gravity, even the "single leap or nothing" people provide at least as much "ballast" as the "many steps good, single leap better" people (and perhaps a bit more, given their unwillingness to compromise - which can serve to make the gradualists look more "reasonable" to the "normies").

One doesn't have to like them in order to recognize and value them as useful in just the way I outlined in my previous post. (I'm sure there are many "moderate" or "gradualist" leftists who despise their radicals - but who are nevertheless able to understand, appreciate and exploit the avenues that those despised radicals open up ...)

Of course, it's nice when we can all "just get along." As I said in the post to which I linked:

[...]

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

But it isn't necessary that the absolutists be liked by the gradualists (and vice versa). All that is necessary is that enough of each of them exist.

Sadly for the cause of liberty, that is currently not the case - which is why our absolutists (even when they are making unpleasant pests of themselves) should not be driven off or told that they are "useless" ... (and, of course, the same goes for our pestiferous gradualists ...)

[Pauls' Revere]

Personally I hope the schools Indoctrination centers never open back up again.

corrected.

[devil21]

That's better - but ...

When it comes to shifting the center of gravity, even the "single leap or nothing" people provide at least as much "ballast" as the "many steps good, single leap better" people (and perhaps a bit more, given their unwillingness to compromise - which can serve to make the gradualists look more "reasonable" to the "normies").

One doesn't have to like them in order to recognize and value them as useful in just the way I outlined in my previous post. (I'm sure there are many "moderate" or "gradualist" leftists who despise their radicals - but who are nevertheless able to understand, appreciate and exploit the avenues that those despised radicals open up ...)

Of course, it's nice when we can all "just get along." As I said in the post to which I linked:
But it isn't necessary that the absolutists be liked by the gradualists (and vice versa). All that is necessary is that enough of each of them exist.

Sadly for the cause of liberty, that is currently not the case - which is why our absolutists (even when they are making unpleasant pests of themselves) should not be driven off or told that they are "useless" ... (and, of course, the same goes for our pestiferous gradualists ...)

The problem with "steps" is that by the time all of the tiny steps amount to any real change, the false party paradigm swings back the other way and the new administration/Congress rolls all of the steps back so there is no net change and then quickly adds new steps (or large leaps, as we see lately) in the other direction. Or as we see with Trump administration, the "steps" we'd favor aren't really even steps at all. Just PR releases without any teeth and very little truth. The only way for incremental steps to make long term change is to do like TPTB do and simply own both parties.

[enhanced_deficit]

Over half of my property tax goes to schools... how ‘bout a refund?

That is against the spirit of helping others and violates principles of compassionate socialism.
MAGA revolution's top donor is also a social liberal.

[shakey1]

That is against the spirit of helping others and violates principles of compassionate socialism.
MAGA revolution's top donor is also a social liberal.

I do not consent.