Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Divine Wind]

The problem is there is any federal funding at all. Schools should be funded and operated by local people. We have way too much federal government in our life as it is.

And how much would it cost to have an investment program? I'm sure there are wasteful programs in school today that cold be cut.

Dude, you either didn't read my post or you totally negated your entire argument. Over 90% of all public school funding is state or local.

 

[Godboy]

She said he was carrying it for protection. Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to minors. How ******* stupid ARE You?

 

[TheOldSchool]

She said he was carrying it for protection. Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to minors. How ******* stupid ARE You?

Yeah, because of you Godless libtards.

 

[Godboy]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

There is more to it than a parenting problem. There's a society problem.

In what world do kids think they need weapons to protect themselves? Well, in a society that is failing to protect people, to instill morals into kids and all of that.

The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then ***** and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

A hundred dollars says this ***** hasn't worked in years. She's been on a sofa collecting welfare. The left is directly responsible for the disintegration of the black family unit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is there is any federal funding at all. Schools should be funded and operated by local people. We have way too much federal government in our life as it is.

And how much would it cost to have an investment program? I'm sure there are wasteful programs in school today that cold be cut.

Dude, you either didn't read my post or you totally negated your entire argument. Over 90% of all public school funding is state or local.

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

 

[Divine Wind]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your solutions don't work. Tough love works. You can't teach people that don't want to learn anything. You can't make people want something they simply don't want. Which horse will run for you: the one where you dangle a carrot in front of his face, of the one you feed carrots to?

The motivator for success is desire, and yes......greed. If you have no desire or greed, you will not work to satisfy those needs.

People on the take? Many of them. In the recession, my drunken neighbor lost his job due to the company closing. He stayed on unemployment for nearly two years. When I seen him in the yard, I would yell over "Hey Charley, how's the job hunt going?" He would just laugh and reply "What job hunt?" When he exhausted every last dime he could get from the government, he went to work for his brother-in-law; a job he could have taken at any time.

Last Christmas my cousin threw a party for all the cousins in the family. We don't see each other all that much, so it gave us time to catch up. I started to talk to one of my cousins and asked about his brother who retired on disability. I told him it was a shame he couldn't work anymore. He just laughed and said "He can work more than I can. It's just that he doesn't want to, that's why he's on disability!"

It goes on all the time. I have several major disabilities, and I'm working to support younger and much healthier people than I am. Where is the equity in that?

My solutions don't work? Prove it.

As I said, kids are a blank slate in most cases. You start teaching kids properly, and then you'll get a change. Also you're making the assumption that people don't want to be taught, a lot do, but perhaps the society they live in makes them think they won't succeed.

So greed is the motivator for success. Then, use that, make kids realize that if they do this and that that they can succeed. Right now you go into inner cities and the only success they think they can get is as a drug deal or football player. Do you see the problem here? The greed aspect isn't about learning, learning doesn't get you to fulfill your greed, so why the **** bother?

That's why you need to change education, change the cycle of poverty so people know they can get what they want if they study.

Which is why I said earlier that schools need to offer a course in investments. Show these kids that hard work and conscience money management can make them middle--class, upper middle-class and even wealthy if they try.

In our country, wealth is not exclusive to race, gender or even family name. Most millionaires did not inherit their money. Many of them never attended college.

So kids should be taught that they have the same opportunity as anybody else, which reminds me of something that happened a few years back:

One of our customers got bought out by a larger company. One of their benefits was to "give" employees stock. I went there for a delivery and caught them during break. The white employees sat with each other as did the blacks.

The white employees were talking about their stock the company gave them. They were talking about how they looked up the performance of company stocks in the past; how they might consider buying more!

So I walked over to the supervisor of shipping where the blacks sat and asked how he felt about the stocks he was given? I'll never forget his response. He said "I don't know nothing about no stocks. All I know is that I work here (pointing to the ground) and they pay me here (pointing to his wallet pocket.)

It's no surprise how the black community failed. All they know is what they were taught in school--none of which is doing as the wealthy white people do--invest

Do you believe that's a difference of genetics or education?

If the latter, what should be done about it?

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which is why I said earlier that schools need to offer a course in investments. Show these kids that hard work and conscience money management can make them middle--class, upper middle-class and even wealthy if they try.

In our country, wealth is not exclusive to race, gender or even family name. Most millionaires did not inherit their money. Many of them never attended college.

So kids should be taught that they have the same opportunity as anybody else, which reminds me of something that happened a few years back:

One of our customers got bought out by a larger company. One of their benefits was to "give" employees stock. I went there for a delivery and caught them during break. The white employees sat with each other as did the blacks.

The white employees were talking about their stock the company gave them. They were talking about how they looked up the performance of company stocks in the past; how they might consider buying more!

So I walked over to the supervisor of shipping where the blacks sat and asked how he felt about the stocks he was given? I'll never forget his response. He said "I don't know nothing about no stocks. All I know is that I work here (pointing to the ground) and they pay me here (pointing to his wallet pocket.)

It's no surprise how the black community failed. All they know is what they were taught in school--none of which is doing as the wealthy white people do--invest

Do you believe that's a difference of genetics or education?

If the latter, what should be done about it?

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Agreed, and many of the better funded schools do. The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal, the remainder is split almost 50/50 between local and state. Poorer districts don't have funds for relatively new textbooks much less "luxuries" like teaching "investments".

A section in one of Fareed Zakaria's books mentioned that Democracy can only thrive above a certain per capita income level. This truism was born out in Iraq where, IIRC, one US Army General commented how difficult it is to give democracy to people who are more worried about water and the safety of their children.

Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting

The problem is there is any federal funding at all. Schools should be funded and operated by local people. We have way too much federal government in our life as it is.

And how much would it cost to have an investment program? I'm sure there are wasteful programs in school today that cold be cut.

I fully agree. I think that kids should learn about credit, investing, mortgages, and all of the other things that you need to prosper in today's economy, but speaking as a former banker, teachers are the WORST people to teach it. Most of them can't handle their own money much less teach others how to do it successfully. I realize this is just based on personal experiences and biases but doctors and teachers are the worst people ever in handling money.

Doesn't matter how much it would cost, there is NO MONEY for poor schools. Teachers would have to be hired, a course outline set, text books purchased. Phys ed, music, shop and home ec programs have been cut, all of which are enormously beneficial. There is no money for staff, and quite frankly, if it's not state tested, they're not going to do it. Schools are only interested in teaching for those damn tests.

They've cut phys ed from a lot of programs, because it's not necessary to get you a job even though studies show that kids do better academically when they are getting exercise every day, and childhood obesity is a HUGE problem (no pun intended). The benefits of music programs on learning and math skills are also well documented yet it's hard to find schools with music and arts programs either.

Here is the problem with using local funding. The better neighbourhooods have higher taxes and higher school budgets. If you live in a middle class area, chances are your public school is pretty decent. If you live in a poor area, it a broken down crumbling decrepit building, more like a prison than a school, as you put it. Schools which are dependant on local taxes cannot provide a quality education to poor students. The tax base isn't there, so the neediest kids (academically) get the least resources.

If all schools in the state receive the same level of funding, then poor kids will have a better chance. Schools in poor neighbourhoods are never going to offer the same opportunities as schools in well-off areas. Parents can afford more "enrichment" in the way class trips, and other amenities. Parents can fund raise and hold highly profitable school fairs to provide those "extras" that the board doesn't - things like playground equipment, extra computers, and class trips.

The US is the only First World country, other than Turkey, with an education system where the children of the poor do not receive the same level of public school funding as children in better neighbourhoods. Even with equal funding across the state, children from higher income homes are going to have the advantage because their parents can afford enrichment. Their homes are also more likely to have computers and internet access, as well as printers and other electronics to assist with projects and essays.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post about when I was a kid, so allow me to reiterate:

For my primary education, I went to small private Catholic school. It was funded by the church parishioners. We also had bake sales that the mothers participated in, we sold candy door to door, we had rummage sales to raise funds for the school.

Believe it or not, we survived without free school lunches. That's because we didn't have a cafeteria or lunch room. Lunch was eating whatever mom made you at your desk. Speaking of which, you sat at that desk all day long. We didn't switch classes because there were no classes to switch to.

We didn't have union college educated teachers, we had nuns, and Lord knows the extent of their education. Religion class was taught everyday, and we had to attend church three times a week; it counted on your report card.

When I got out of there I went to public high school. What a difference. But the thing is, I would match our Catholic school class to any of those public school classes any day of the week. I would have even put money on the outcome of a contest.

If you take an entire school of those middle-class students you speak of, and swap them with the inner-city schools, the students from the middle-class school would learn just as well. They would continue to pass and excel. The inner-city kids now going to the middle-class school would have the same failure rate; maybe even worse.

Money doesn't equate outcome. If that were the case, the US would have the smartest graduates in the world since we spend more per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

 

[Divine Wind]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

WTF does states rights and local decisions have to do with this? Schools that are locally funded could teach kids what they actually need to learn; teach them that wealth can be acquired by anybody in this wonderful free country. Show them how foreigners who came here with twenty dollars in their pocket and speaking thirty words of English take advantage of our capitalistic system and become successful themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

My solutions don't work? Prove it.

As I said, kids are a blank slate in most cases. You start teaching kids properly, and then you'll get a change. Also you're making the assumption that people don't want to be taught, a lot do, but perhaps the society they live in makes them think they won't succeed.

So greed is the motivator for success. Then, use that, make kids realize that if they do this and that that they can succeed. Right now you go into inner cities and the only success they think they can get is as a drug deal or football player. Do you see the problem here? The greed aspect isn't about learning, learning doesn't get you to fulfill your greed, so why the **** bother?

That's why you need to change education, change the cycle of poverty so people know they can get what they want if they study.

Which is why I said earlier that schools need to offer a course in investments. Show these kids that hard work and conscience money management can make them middle--class, upper middle-class and even wealthy if they try.

In our country, wealth is not exclusive to race, gender or even family name. Most millionaires did not inherit their money. Many of them never attended college.

So kids should be taught that they have the same opportunity as anybody else, which reminds me of something that happened a few years back:

One of our customers got bought out by a larger company. One of their benefits was to "give" employees stock. I went there for a delivery and caught them during break. The white employees sat with each other as did the blacks.

The white employees were talking about their stock the company gave them. They were talking about how they looked up the performance of company stocks in the past; how they might consider buying more!

So I walked over to the supervisor of shipping where the blacks sat and asked how he felt about the stocks he was given? I'll never forget his response. He said "I don't know nothing about no stocks. All I know is that I work here (pointing to the ground) and they pay me here (pointing to his wallet pocket.)

It's no surprise how the black community failed. All they know is what they were taught in school--none of which is doing as the wealthy white people do--invest

Do you believe that's a difference of genetics or education?

If the latter, what should be done about it?

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Do you believe that's a difference of genetics or education?

If the latter, what should be done about it?

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Agreed, and many of the better funded schools do. The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal, the remainder is split almost 50/50 between local and state. Poorer districts don't have funds for relatively new textbooks much less "luxuries" like teaching "investments".

A section in one of Fareed Zakaria's books mentioned that Democracy can only thrive above a certain per capita income level. This truism was born out in Iraq where, IIRC, one US Army General commented how difficult it is to give democracy to people who are more worried about water and the safety of their children.

Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting

The problem is there is any federal funding at all. Schools should be funded and operated by local people. We have way too much federal government in our life as it is.

And how much would it cost to have an investment program? I'm sure there are wasteful programs in school today that cold be cut.

I fully agree. I think that kids should learn about credit, investing, mortgages, and all of the other things that you need to prosper in today's economy, but speaking as a former banker, teachers are the WORST people to teach it. Most of them can't handle their own money much less teach others how to do it successfully. I realize this is just based on personal experiences and biases but doctors and teachers are the worst people ever in handling money.

Doesn't matter how much it would cost, there is NO MONEY for poor schools. Teachers would have to be hired, a course outline set, text books purchased. Phys ed, music, shop and home ec programs have been cut, all of which are enormously beneficial. There is no money for staff, and quite frankly, if it's not state tested, they're not going to do it. Schools are only interested in teaching for those damn tests.

They've cut phys ed from a lot of programs, because it's not necessary to get you a job even though studies show that kids do better academically when they are getting exercise every day, and childhood obesity is a HUGE problem (no pun intended). The benefits of music programs on learning and math skills are also well documented yet it's hard to find schools with music and arts programs either.

Here is the problem with using local funding. The better neighbourhooods have higher taxes and higher school budgets. If you live in a middle class area, chances are your public school is pretty decent. If you live in a poor area, it a broken down crumbling decrepit building, more like a prison than a school, as you put it. Schools which are dependant on local taxes cannot provide a quality education to poor students. The tax base isn't there, so the neediest kids (academically) get the least resources.

If all schools in the state receive the same level of funding, then poor kids will have a better chance. Schools in poor neighbourhoods are never going to offer the same opportunities as schools in well-off areas. Parents can afford more "enrichment" in the way class trips, and other amenities. Parents can fund raise and hold highly profitable school fairs to provide those "extras" that the board doesn't - things like playground equipment, extra computers, and class trips.

The US is the only First World country, other than Turkey, with an education system where the children of the poor do not receive the same level of public school funding as children in better neighbourhoods. Even with equal funding across the state, children from higher income homes are going to have the advantage because their parents can afford enrichment. Their homes are also more likely to have computers and internet access, as well as printers and other electronics to assist with projects and essays.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post about when I was a kid, so allow me to reiterate:

For my primary education, I went to small private Catholic school. It was funded by the church parishioners. We also had bake sales that the mothers participated in, we sold candy door to door, we had rummage sales to raise funds for the school.

Believe it or not, we survived without free school lunches. That's because we didn't have a cafeteria or lunch room. Lunch was eating whatever mom made you at your desk. Speaking of which, you sat at that desk all day long. We didn't switch classes because there were no classes to switch to.

We didn't have union college educated teachers, we had nuns, and Lord knows the extent of their education. Religion class was taught everyday, and we had to attend church three times a week; it counted on your report card.

When I got out of there I went to public high school. What a difference. But the thing is, I would match our Catholic school class to any of those public school classes any day of the week. I would have even put money on the outcome of a contest.

If you take an entire school of those middle-class students you speak of, and swap them with the inner-city schools, the students from the middle-class school would learn just as well. They would continue to pass and excel. The inner-city kids now going to the middle-class school would have the same failure rate; maybe even worse.

Money doesn't equate outcome. If that were the case, the US would have the smartest graduates in the world since we spend more per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world.

Yes you do spend more per capital, but parents contribute the most to their children's education too. On average, 1/3 of the cost of per capita cost child. You're not getting much for all that money.

But you also have the most education choices. Conservatives have been telling everyone that choice will improve the quality of the school, but it hasn't. Although charter schools have a higher cost, their results aren't that much higher that the difference can't be accounted for by "skimming" the cream from the public schools, so you're right, overall, money is not the issue.

But having said that, funding needs to be sufficient that the poor kids at least have a shot. Their schools need textbooks for every child, for every course, and they need access to computers and libraries.

Yes, the children of the rich will do better. They have better nutrition at home. They have parents who aren't working two jobs to keep a roof over their heads, and who have both the time and the energy to help them with their schoolwork, when they need it, and the ability to do so. If your parents never finished school high school, how much help can they give.

When a wealthy benefactor has come along and "adopted" a class of inner city second graders, promising help through school, and free college tuition if the were accepted into college, I believe 60% of those children went on to university. But the

 

[Divine Wind]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

WTF does states rights and local decisions have to do with this? Schools that are locally funded could teach kids what they actually need to learn; teach them that wealth can be acquired by anybody in this wonderful free country. Show them how foreigners who came here with twenty dollars in their pocket and speaking thirty words of English take advantage of our capitalistic system and become successful themselves.

Correct, schools over 90% locally and state funded.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is why I said earlier that schools need to offer a course in investments. Show these kids that hard work and conscience money management can make them middle--class, upper middle-class and even wealthy if they try.

In our country, wealth is not exclusive to race, gender or even family name. Most millionaires did not inherit their money. Many of them never attended college.

So kids should be taught that they have the same opportunity as anybody else, which reminds me of something that happened a few years back:

One of our customers got bought out by a larger company. One of their benefits was to "give" employees stock. I went there for a delivery and caught them during break. The white employees sat with each other as did the blacks.

The white employees were talking about their stock the company gave them. They were talking about how they looked up the performance of company stocks in the past; how they might consider buying more!

So I walked over to the supervisor of shipping where the blacks sat and asked how he felt about the stocks he was given? I'll never forget his response. He said "I don't know nothing about no stocks. All I know is that I work here (pointing to the ground) and they pay me here (pointing to his wallet pocket.)

It's no surprise how the black community failed. All they know is what they were taught in school--none of which is doing as the wealthy white people do--invest

Do you believe that's a difference of genetics or education?

If the latter, what should be done about it?

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think high schools should have an investment course. Teach these kids there are other ways to chase success than playing sports or making a hit rap song. Teach them about compound interest, the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, basics of opening up your own business, the cost to raise a child.

Currently, many of those people believe that in order to be successful, you have to be born the right race, into the right family, into the right neighborhood. That's the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Agreed, and many of the better funded schools do. The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal, the remainder is split almost 50/50 between local and state. Poorer districts don't have funds for relatively new textbooks much less "luxuries" like teaching "investments".

A section in one of Fareed Zakaria's books mentioned that Democracy can only thrive above a certain per capita income level. This truism was born out in Iraq where, IIRC, one US Army General commented how difficult it is to give democracy to people who are more worried about water and the safety of their children.

Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting

The problem is there is any federal funding at all. Schools should be funded and operated by local people. We have way too much federal government in our life as it is.

And how much would it cost to have an investment program? I'm sure there are wasteful programs in school today that cold be cut.

I fully agree. I think that kids should learn about credit, investing, mortgages, and all of the other things that you need to prosper in today's economy, but speaking as a former banker, teachers are the WORST people to teach it. Most of them can't handle their own money much less teach others how to do it successfully. I realize this is just based on personal experiences and biases but doctors and teachers are the worst people ever in handling money.

Doesn't matter how much it would cost, there is NO MONEY for poor schools. Teachers would have to be hired, a course outline set, text books purchased. Phys ed, music, shop and home ec programs have been cut, all of which are enormously beneficial. There is no money for staff, and quite frankly, if it's not state tested, they're not going to do it. Schools are only interested in teaching for those damn tests.

They've cut phys ed from a lot of programs, because it's not necessary to get you a job even though studies show that kids do better academically when they are getting exercise every day, and childhood obesity is a HUGE problem (no pun intended). The benefits of music programs on learning and math skills are also well documented yet it's hard to find schools with music and arts programs either.

Here is the problem with using local funding. The better neighbourhooods have higher taxes and higher school budgets. If you live in a middle class area, chances are your public school is pretty decent. If you live in a poor area, it a broken down crumbling decrepit building, more like a prison than a school, as you put it. Schools which are dependant on local taxes cannot provide a quality education to poor students. The tax base isn't there, so the neediest kids (academically) get the least resources.

If all schools in the state receive the same level of funding, then poor kids will have a better chance. Schools in poor neighbourhoods are never going to offer the same opportunities as schools in well-off areas. Parents can afford more "enrichment" in the way class trips, and other amenities. Parents can fund raise and hold highly profitable school fairs to provide those "extras" that the board doesn't - things like playground equipment, extra computers, and class trips.

The US is the only First World country, other than Turkey, with an education system where the children of the poor do not receive the same level of public school funding as children in better neighbourhoods. Even with equal funding across the state, children from higher income homes are going to have the advantage because their parents can afford enrichment. Their homes are also more likely to have computers and internet access, as well as printers and other electronics to assist with projects and essays.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post about when I was a kid, so allow me to reiterate:

For my primary education, I went to small private Catholic school. It was funded by the church parishioners. We also had bake sales that the mothers participated in, we sold candy door to door, we had rummage sales to raise funds for the school.

Believe it or not, we survived without free school lunches. That's because we didn't have a cafeteria or lunch room. Lunch was eating whatever mom made you at your desk. Speaking of which, you sat at that desk all day long. We didn't switch classes because there were no classes to switch to.

We didn't have union college educated teachers, we had nuns, and Lord knows the extent of their education. Religion class was taught everyday, and we had to attend church three times a week; it counted on your report card.

When I got out of there I went to public high school. What a difference. But the thing is, I would match our Catholic school class to any of those public school classes any day of the week. I would have even put money on the outcome of a contest.

If you take an entire school of those middle-class students you speak of, and swap them with the inner-city schools, the students from the middle-class school would learn just as well. They would continue to pass and excel. The inner-city kids now going to the middle-class school would have the same failure rate; maybe even worse.

Money doesn't equate outcome. If that were the case, the US would have the smartest graduates in the world since we spend more per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world.

Yes you do spend more per capital, but parents contribute the most to their children's education too. On average, 1/3 of the cost of per capita cost child. You're not getting much for all that money.

But you also have the most education choices. Conservatives have been telling everyone that choice will improve the quality of the school, but it hasn't. Although charter schools have a higher cost, their results aren't that much higher that the difference can't be accounted for by "skimming" the cream from the public schools, so you're right, overall, money is not the issue.

But having said that, funding needs to be sufficient that the poor kids at least have a shot. Their schools need textbooks for every child, for every course, and they need access to computers and libraries.

Yes, the children of the rich will do better. They have better nutrition at home. They have parents who aren't working two jobs to keep a roof over their heads, and who have both the time and the energy to help them with their schoolwork, when they need it, and the ability to do so. If your parents never finished school high school, how much help can they give.

When a wealthy benefactor has come along and "adopted" a class of inner city second graders, promising help through school, and free college tuition if the were accepted into college, I believe 60% of those children went on to university. But the

Or maybe it's because middle-class and wealthier parents actually give a shit about their kids. All the money in the world won't provide that for kids who's parents don't.

It's like my earlier story about my former neighbor. The kid bought a portable basketball hoop, and before you know it, every kid from five blocks around were here playing basketball. They started right after school and played into the dark of night; a few times I had the cops here.

So where are the parent(s) that allow their kid to stay out all day after school and all night instead of making sure they are home doing their homework? I live in the suburbs. Our schools are fine. They are well funded.......trust me, over half of my property tax goes to fund those schools.

Bottom line: it's not the schools or the funding. Yes, it is the parent in most cases. You can't fix that no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I read it just fine, just like I read your comment about needing more federal government money in schools.

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

WTF does states rights and local decisions have to do with this? Schools that are locally funded could teach kids what they actually need to learn; teach them that wealth can be acquired by anybody in this wonderful free country. Show them how foreigners who came here with twenty dollars in their pocket and speaking thirty words of English take advantage of our capitalistic system and become successful themselves.

Correct, schools over 90% locally and state funded.

Okay then. But when you said The Problem is schools not getting enough federal funding, then the implication there is that more federal funding is the solution, and that's what I addressed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you do call for that change, expect to hear a lot of echo's because you'll be one of the few in that room.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

You can't say that Trump was voted in just because of his personality. Most people don't like his personality. People voted for Trump because he was the only candidate that took a tough stance on our immigration problem.

The Republicans have gained so much power the last six years in state offices, county offices, federal seats, and it's not because Republicans have such good personalities. It's because Democrats have made it known they are trying tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. And now more activist judges are aiding them. This is liberalism and Americans are rejecting it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't like Trump's personality, but he ran on the best ideals, to be tough on Islamic refugees, illegal immigrants, and outsourced jobs.

I didn't vote, but if I did it would have been Trump, Hillary would have been another Merkel, who Hillary deeply admired Merkel.

Merkel has been a very competent and popular leader in Germany. So you'd have voted for some guy who even half admits he's not the right person for the job, rather than a person you think would be successful? Er... what?

 

[Divine Wind]

Where you read that into my post(s)?

Right here:

The problem is that less than 10% of public school funding is Federal

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

WTF does states rights and local decisions have to do with this? Schools that are locally funded could teach kids what they actually need to learn; teach them that wealth can be acquired by anybody in this wonderful free country. Show them how foreigners who came here with twenty dollars in their pocket and speaking thirty words of English take advantage of our capitalistic system and become successful themselves.

Correct, schools over 90% locally and state funded.

Okay then. But when you said The Problem is schools not getting enough federal funding, then the implication there is that more federal funding is the solution, and that's what I addressed.

As I also stated, school funding if often based on local taxes. States can help poorer districts with better school funding, but that doesn't help with other problems associated with poor areas. Telling poor school districts to teach "investments" when they can hardly teach the 3 R's is akin to telling people who have no bread to eat cake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, there is a reason why I call for a change in the way people vote. Democrats and Republicans are taking the country down.

When you do call for that change, expect to hear a lot of echo's because you'll be one of the few in that room.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

You can't say that Trump was voted in just because of his personality. Most people don't like his personality. People voted for Trump because he was the only candidate that took a tough stance on our immigration problem.

The Republicans have gained so much power the last six years in state offices, county offices, federal seats, and it's not because Republicans have such good personalities. It's because Democrats have made it known they are trying tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. And now more activist judges are aiding them. This is liberalism and Americans are rejecting it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No, I disagree. Trump used the "I'm one of you" the same as Dubya used. He managed to create a semi-cult by using the same nationalistic, populist imagery in people's minds. The same has been done in plenty of other countries, all he needed to do was to look see how it was done and then carry it out. But there are many on the right who seem to like politicians who are at their level. But there are plenty of other things he did too, like hope. It wasn't just personality that attracted people. But then again the voting was also quite negative.

Immigration is just one issue, and it's how you present the issue too. Had Trump come out with sensible plans for dealing with immigration, no one would have given a damn. It was that he went on about a wall, he found something like a relic in religion, something people would should about, something simple, something visual, something simple people think would work.

There isn't a simple answer to why Trump managed to get into office, but at the heart of it he presented people with populism and a personality of someone who is "tough" and people go crazy for "tough" people, even though they end up causing more harm than solutions to problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And then you wonder why there are problems in society.

No I don't wonder I know why there are problems I know why there are problems and every problem starts with the individual and the choices made by that individual

Like the decision of individuals to be slaves?

we have slaves?

No. My point was that you said problems start with the individual. So I was wondering A) if slaves brought on their problems themselves, like the problem of being in slavery and B) the problems that have come from slavery, like racism, segregation, discrimination were brought on black people themselves, or was it the people who are acting in such a manner and have/had the power to do so who were bringing the problems on other people.

The point being that often it isn't the individual who is bringing the problems on themselves, but OTHERS who have the power to impose problems on others.

and yet you want to impose your will on others so they act the way you think they should

And you don't? You don't believe in laws to stop people acting in ways you think they shouldn't?

All kids grow up being told how to think, how to act, what is right, what is wrong. It happens with every single person. You can pretend it doesn't happen, but it does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right here:

Great! Now quote that in context to what I was responding to with that truism.

You were the one who advocated spending more money on specific subjects. Are you against State's rights and local decisions?

WTF does states rights and local decisions have to do with this? Schools that are locally funded could teach kids what they actually need to learn; teach them that wealth can be acquired by anybody in this wonderful free country. Show them how foreigners who came here with twenty dollars in their pocket and speaking thirty words of English take advantage of our capitalistic system and become successful themselves.

Correct, schools over 90% locally and state funded.

Okay then. But when you said The Problem is schools not getting enough federal funding, then the implication there is that more federal funding is the solution, and that's what I addressed.

As I also stated, school funding if often based on local taxes. States can help poorer districts with better school funding, but that doesn't help with other problems associated with poor areas. Telling poor school districts to teach "investments" when they can hardly teach the 3 R's is akin to telling people who have no bread to eat cake.

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, there is a reason why I call for a change in the way people vote. Democrats and Republicans are taking the country down.

When you do call for that change, expect to hear a lot of echo's because you'll be one of the few in that room.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

actually locking people up does work you just have to keep them locked up

So... Louisiana, lock 'em up capital of the god damn world, has low crime rates? Low murder rates?

No, it doesn't.

So... then.... what?

You're going to lock up half the country, bankrupt the country. Some guy was caught J-walking, you're going to give him life because it's the only way to stop him doing it in the future?

Oh, yeah, you don't want to tell people how to act.