Baseless Boasting About Irvine

StarmanMBA

Active member
Ewww, ewww, Irvine is "the safest city in America."

Eww, eww, Irvine "has good schools."

What does one have to do with the other? Everything.

City Council and the Mayor have been boasting about safety for decades.

IUSD has been crowing about great schools for decades.  "Give more money!  We need more money!"

Demographics account for both of these issues.  Demographics and nothing else.

If Irvine sent its entire police staff and IUSD sent its staff to Santa and they sent theirs here, what would change?

The Santa Ana police and teachers would think they died and went to heaven that's what.  The Irvine folks, just the opposite.
My neighbor teaches in Santa Ana.  She babysits, she says.
One boy returned to school and she asked him where he was.
"In jail for car theft."
Why do you do that?
"It's fun and I just get a slap on the wrist."

Welcome to Democrat Land.
 
I have no idea who LL or YF are, but all of you are missing the point.
The point of discussion is the discussion, NOT the messenger.
Count on Leftists to ignore the message and attack the person because they have nothing to counter the message.

More money, more money, more money.  We want more money.  It's for the CHILDREN don't you know......
The correlation between education achievement and spending is inverse.  The more money that has been spent for the last seventy years has only resulted in worse results. 

?In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, ?It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.? ?  ? William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America
 

Attachments

  • Education spending increases vs performance.jpg
    Education spending increases vs performance.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 99
You really want to compare the present to 1950, when 1/3 of the students were "educated" without textbooks in schools without heat or cooling, and less than 60% of students graduated high school?
Also, it is a heck of a lot cheaper to ignore or warehouse all the kids with learning disabilities, who tend to cost 2x-10x as much to educate.
 
I find it funny that you and LL have the same message. Also, both have a thing for grammar. (sic)

Do not talk about more money. Because the Trump administration bailout is far worst than TARP. The US taxpayers were paid back in full and made money under TARP. The PPP loan is a joke. It is not even a loan. It is a free money grant with no oversight.

How about the bailout Trump have to the farmers? (Due to the China trade war) Since you can not sell your crops to China. The US government will help you out. Give me a break!!!!!!!!

StarmanMBA said:
I have no idea who LL or YF are, but all of you are missing the point.
The point of discussion is the discussion, NOT the messenger.
Count on Leftists to ignore the message and attack the person because they have nothing to counter the message.

More money, more money, more money.  We want more money.  It's for the CHILDREN don't you know......
The correlation between education achievement and spending is inverse.  The more money that has been spent for the last seventy years has only resulted in worse results. 

?In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, ?It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.? ?  ? William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America
 
Back
Top