More money into education is definitely not indicative of more positive results.

The law of diminishing returns is very strong when it comes to the relationship between education funding and testing results, graduation rates, and any other measurement of success.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Lori: The school system now is the Teacher’s unions.

I understand what you are saying,but the Unions own the schools and get a cut of all the money that goes to the school system. We first need to break the grip that the Teacher’s Unions have on our education system.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The teachers unions are one thing. The school system is another. I am always appalled
at the gross spending our politicians seem to feel they are entitled to at our expence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Lori: Putting money into the school system only empowers the unions. It does not help kids.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Tax money should not be allowed to be used for these parties. Not for security, entertainment,
or any of it. If you took the 160-170 or more million dollars and put it into the US school
system, just think what might become?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Jules Crittenden: End of an Era The Other McCain: Another Invitation I Missed Flopping Aces: Worst Economy Since Depression=Most Expensive Inauguration EVER Rush Limbaugh: I hope He [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Scott Malensek: Are we suppose to trust Media Matters??? They are owned by Soros and the rest of his merry men that are trying to bring us Socialism.

Newsmax is almost as bad on the other side also. So I do not really trust either.

So,@Larry Weisenthal: , you still have not explained the total hypocrisy on the Left. No matter what the cost is with or without the Security. Why is it that there is one standard for Bush and another for the Messiah??? Bush was detested for his inauguration, but since this is the One’s (The Lightbringer) he gets a pass?? That does not give. Not matter how ‘Historical” the inauguration is.

And to use Media Matters as a sourse is about as good as using the Daily News as a source. Both have a disreguard for the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks Larry. You’ll notice I posted this in a new thread. I did so because it’s from ABC News which addresses the security talking point from Media Matters.

There’s something else though. If Bush’s second Inaug only had 300k, and Obama’s has 4-5x as many people….then seriously, something needs to be checked out re Bush’s and Obama’s. One was too expensive.

I find it VERY interesting that the Media Matters talking point has been cut/pasted on this thread and the other one that I started also on the subject of Inaug costs. Both of my posts left all the facts to the msm articles they linked to. They were not FA claims, or Republican talking points, or Scott claims. I don’t have time or interest to do the math. With no one working in this household for the past 5wks, I could give a rat’s ass about other people’s bills. The point I was trying to make is that the duplicity of the left’s rantings from the past 8yrs now flip, and it starts w their rantings about the Inaugs.

It’s also really interesting how fast Media Matters hit AOL. Interesting. Who influences/funds/controls Media Matters, and what’s done with the product it produces?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I just read this commentary on the AOL website, under “question of the day: is the Obama inauguration worth $150 million?”

I post an extended excerpt. Note that it specifically quotes Flopping Aces, right up there with Fox News. Congratulations on the shout out but raspberries on the misrepresentation.

Here’s why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush’s 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration’s security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here’s The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama’s inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What’s happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it’s the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama’s inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush’s.

That’s why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama’s swearing-in would cost “nearly four times what George Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.” So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:

President Barack Obama’s inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush’s inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton’s in 1993.

If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush’s 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million — just as with security factored in, Obama’s will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won’t be known for months.)

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush’s 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration’s unprecedented move to turn the nation’s capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. “U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration,” The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: “[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government.”

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama’s inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, “the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers” [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush’s 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That’s right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won’t cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won’t cost $100 million more than Bush’s, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What recession?????

I realize this is anecdotal but I was in a store here on Long Island this weekend…6th Avenue Electronics. Great store for getting TV’s, etc. We just bought our first flat-panel TV there on New Year’s Day. Anyway, the place was jumping. People were buying stuff hand over fist. I went in there for a VHS/DVD converter for less that $100 and I saw an LG home theater system for almost 50% off the Best Buy price. I scooped it up.

I’m just a working stiff and both my wife and I have to work to be able to live here on Long Island. Based on what I’ve seen in the stores lately, people are spending. They may be using credit but they’re buying stuff. BTW, 6th Avenue will give you there credit card and you don’t have to pay interest for a year. It’s a no-brainer. We’ll pay it off long before the end of the year.

Like or Dislike: 0  0