Rick Santorum opposes public schooling

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's what bugs me about political commentary such as this...They don't represent policy ideas that would actually be pursued. Worse, they detract from policy issues to do matter. Environmental policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy, defense policy, etc. The media should be hammering on these constantly with all candidates. But nooooo, we get endless drivel about Obama's war on religion, for example.

100% agreement. There are probably many causes. The simplest one is that many journalists are innumerate and those who are not don't believe their audience is. Maybe they're right.

You can read Brookings studies or American Enterprise studies or Pew Foundation studies of entitlement obligations or pension underfunding if that's your thing.

 

[SezMe]

Nothing on the scale of Obama's deficits occurred under Bush, either. Not even close.

That is an amazing claim. It is false. It is so false, it is truly false. Not even close. I cannot imagine how you could make such a claim that can be so easily refuted. Go here and slide down to the Appendix.

Want to give it another shot?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So... not only did the Tea Party not care when a Republican was racking up record deficits, but they could also see into the future to a time when the Democrat who just took office would increase the deficit they didn't seem to care about until just then? Truly amazing.

Not care? Hardly. Again: Porkbusters. One would expect the reaction to excessive spending to be in proportion to the excess, right? People certainly cared. Remember "Read my lips: No new taxes"? That was a one-term President. Later, during the 2000 primary, Molly Ivins wrote that Bush II would disappoint fiscal conservatives as President since he would preside as President the way he governed as Governor of Texas, and reach across the aisle (which he did). Steve Forbes was the candidate for fiscal conservatives.

Organizations do not "care". Candidate Obama complained about the Bush deficits. Some Tea Party deficit critics earlier participated in Porkbusters. To say "not only did the Tea Party not care when a Republican was racking up record deficits..." is like saying that the author of The Origin of Species did not exist before 1858. That's just word trickery. Darwin was born in 1809, and the Origin... was published in 1859, so a description of Darwin before 1859 that included "the author of The Origin of Species" would not have applied. But that's just word trickery. Darwin certainly existed before 1859. And then the Origin... was published. Fiscal conservatives existed before Jan. 2009. The people who cared rallied after Santelli's rant, after Obama made clear that bailouts and deficits would continue and grow. And then the Tea Party was born.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That is an amazing claim. It is false. It is so false, it is truly false. Not even close. I cannot imagine how you could make such a claim that can be so easily refuted.

Go here.

Want to give it another shot?/QUOTE]

 

[johnny karate]

Not care? Hardly. Again: Porkbusters.

Porkbusters =/= The Tea Party

Since you've already been corrected on this point at least twice, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post. I am sure it's filled with more of the same willful dishonesty.

 

[SezMe]

Remember "Read my lips: No new taxes"? That was a one-term President.

Jesus, Malcom, another unbelievable claim. Herbert Walker was tossed under the bus because he DID try to deal with the debt, not because he ignored it. For Republicans, raising taxes was a far greater sin than trying to lower the debt.

<Darwin nonsense deleted> Fiscal conservatives existed before Jan. 2009.

No ****, Sherlock. That's not the point. The issue is whether they were vocal and effective. They were not....and please don't bring up porkbusters again.

The people who cared rallied after Santelli's rant, after Obama made clear that bailouts and deficits would continue and grow. And then the Tea Party was born.

Do you think Santelli's rant was spontaneous?

Santelli ranted and then the Tea Party was born. Obama was elected and the Tea Party was born. Which is the "cause" in these cause-effect relationships?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Porkbusters =/= The Tea Party
Since you've already been corrected on this point at least twice, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post. I am sure it's filled with more of the same willful dishonesty.

On the subject of willful dishonesty:...The people who formed the Tea Party rallied to Santelli's rant, in Feb 2009. To ask why they did not form the Tea Party before Feb 2009 is like asking why Darwin did not publish the Origin before 1859. Darwin had evolution on his mind from the time of the Beagle voyage (1832). Some of the Tea Partiers had government spending on their minds since the publication of Von Mises Socialism. But they were not "Tea Partiers" in 1922. And Darwin was not the author of the Origin... in 1850.

 

[RandFan]

Well...

The Tea Party didn't exist prior. Look, I don't know for a fact what caused what. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the Tea Party didn't form until about a month after Obama took office. That looks rather suspicious to me.

 

[RandFan]

On the subject of willful dishonesty:...The people who formed the Tea Party rallied to Santelli's rant, in Feb 2009. To ask why they did not form the Tea Party before Feb 2009 is like asking why Darwin did not publish the Origin before 1859. Darwin had evolution on his mind from the time of the Beagle voyage (1832). Some of the Tea Partiers had government spending on their minds since the publication of Von Mises Socialism. But they were not "Tea Partiers" in 1922. And Darwin was not the author of the Origin... in 1850.

I can believe that "some" of the Tea Partiers were concerned during the Bush admin. That said, I would find them far more compelling had they started their protests before Obama. FWIW: I have defended the Tea Party and have not dismissed them out of hand. However, I do very much suspect that much of the sturm and drang was a result of Obama being in the White House.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I can believe that "some" of the Tea Partiers were concerned during the Bush admin. That said, I would find them far more compelling had they started their protests before Obama.

Porkbusters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Cato Institute.

I do very much suspect that much of the sturm and drang was a result of Obama being in the White House.

I suspect you're right.

Go here.

 

[SezMe]

....and please don't bring up porkbusters again.

Porkbusters.

I guess when the Costa Concordiais is all you have, you hang on for dear life.

 

[SezMe]

Go here.

I did. There is a substantial difference between the numbers I cited and the ones you cited. The ones in the wiki article are well referenced. The ones in your cite have no reference at all. Guess which I'll trust.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It means that when he wanted/needed it, he didn't have any problem with the taxpayer-funded, evil, Satanic, socialistic public schools teaching HIS kids (to the tune of $38,000 per year); yet now, in an election year, suddenly the U.S. public education system is "a thing of the past."

Santorum is a hypocritical turd. If he wants to avoid this charge, he should pay back every nickel, with interest.

And his suing a chiropractor for $500,000 when he was at the same time trying to get damages capped at $250,000 isn't a bit of a give away?

 

[Eddie Dane]

I suspect now that Santorum is trolling the country.

When he picks Rick Astley as his campaign music, we'll know for sure.

 

[Robert Prey]

We thought Rick Perry was out in left field with ending the Department of Education. Santorum takes it one step further. He wants to get rid of public schools. He appears to think that home schooling or small, privately-run neighborhood schools could handle the job. He says public schools are an artifact of the Industrial Revolution. (Damn, that Industrial Revolution!)

Has there ever been a candidate so close to being nominated by a major party that was so completely out of touch with reality?

Government schools serve brainwash America's youth and teach down to the lowest common denominator. American students are among the worst in many among industrialized nations, but number one in one thing only -- Self Esteem. In other words, American kids are too dumb to know just how dumb they are. It's time government schools were abolished along with the Dept.of Education. America does not need continued implementation of the Tenth Plank of the Communist Manifesto.

 

[eeyore1954]

His claim is that homeschooling is superior to public education, yet when he was a Senator he enrolled his own kids in a public charter school. Connect-the-dots.

Either he is a hypocrite for not exclusively homeschooling his kids or he is an idiot for giving them an "inferior" public education.

Take your pick. I don't think he's an idiot.

Connect the dots? Either he is a hypocrite or an idiot, no other possible choices. He tried something that is very similar to what many people do for homeschooling. Homeschooling withh home based computer learning systems probably is probably offered by most home school curriculum.

The way it would be hypocritical for him to have taken advantage of the program is if he is against government funding for public schools. Is there any evidence he is?

 

[Tricky]

Just a note. The school Santorum "sent" his kids to was an on-line Charter "cyber-school" with a government-approved curriculum. You could technically say that they were "home schooled", though I don't believe they finished the courses. They still stuck the taxpayers though.

Oh yes, and though all schools cost the taxpayer, sending his kids (electronically or otherwise) to the private school and then charging it to the government costs the taxpayers twice, since they also have to pay for public schools.

 

[eeyore1954]

How is it broken? In every state? Doesn't that suggest a systemic problem? What control does he think will fix the broken system.

Hey, perhaps you are right. Perhaps is so goddamn stupid that he really doesn't know that the federal govt doesn't "run the schools" and giving control to the states would solve the problem (the only possible explanation, right?). If I were still a Republican I'm not sure I'd be jumping to make that argument.

But hey, if it works for you...

Santorum, either wants to get rid of public education or doesn't know how public education even works. Nice.

Where did I say it works for me. I am only saying no where has he indicated "He wants to get rid of public schools" like the quote in the opening paragraph.
I am not saying I agree with his position.

Do you disagree that he did say that public education is an artifact? How would Santorum make it not an artifact?

I do agree he said it was an artifact.


Here are quotes about what his views on public education. I do not see get rid of in there. Change yes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57381049/santorum-parents-should-run-schools/

Local communities and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education."

"It's one thing for states to help fund public education. It's another thing to dictate and micromanage and create a one-size-fits-all education system in states, and certainly in the federal government what President Obama is trying to do," Santorum said.

When asked what he would do as president, Santorum said he would "get the state government out" and put parents "in charge, working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential."

 

[eeyore1954]

Just a note. The school Santorum "sent" his kids to was an on-line Charter "cyber-school" with a government-approved curriculum. You could technically say that they were "home schooled", though I don't believe they finished the courses. They still stuck the taxpayers though.

Oh yes, and though all schools cost the taxpayer, sending his kids (electronically or otherwise) to the private school and then charging it to the government costs the taxpayers twice, since they also have to pay for public schools.

You sound like the lady from NYC council that said requiring all children to go to kindergarden would not cost NYC any money because the teachers and classrooms were already there.

The district should make estimates of how many children wil be attending the cyber school instead and budget for teachers and all other expenses accordingly. So the more people who choose to send their children to this cyber school the less money is spent on the traditional school.
I am not justifying his use of the school obviously they did not hire less teachers just because his children all in diferent grade did not go.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe is he against funding for public schools?

How is this distinguishable from not wanting public schools?

______

Santorum also needs a history lesson. From the article in the OP:

"We didn't have government-run schools for a long time in this country, for the majority of the time in this country," he said. "We had private education. We had local education. Parents actually controlled the education of their children. What a great idea that is."

The first public school pre-dated here pre-dated the founding of our country. There were public schools throughout our entire history. I suspect what Rick meant is that there wasn't universal, free public education. That dates from the late nineteenth century.

If he meant (but didn't say) universal free public education, I'd rate his claim as just barely true. As it is worded and what he meant to imply, it's just plain false.

ETA: And I have no idea why is comparing public vs. local education as if they were exclusive ideas.

Also, even if his claim about U.S. history were true, does it follow that there's something wrong with universal free public education? In the mid-19th Century, using that argument on the major controversy of the day would have put you in favor of slavery. In fact, we had slavery for just about as much of our history as we lacked free public education in all the states.