I hate bans and moderation. It’s extra work, and I don’t want to be a judge.
There are two kinds of comments I delete: ones that violate the editorial policy (such as publishing real names of private people, obscene, threatening, and completely off topic for the site), and inane comments designed to get a reaction (trolls). Persistent practitioners of that latter group get banned. Every time I have relented on a ban, I end up re-enforcing it again.
They have something at The Fogbow called FEMA Camp 7½ that’s somewhat separate from the rest of the forum. One can get access to it if desired, and the troll/intractable person can comment there too. Still in search of a solution, I’m going to revive an old scheme, the Off-topic dump. I don’t have the ability to set up something like what Fogbow uses, but I can set up an article (this one) where no one can comment, and then move comments I don’t want to appear in the middle of the active discussions here.
To find the dumps, just select "Off topic" from the Conspiracies drop-down box in the right sidebar.
I selected a couple of comments from Hermitian to line the bottom of the pail, and I want to use them to illustrate why I put them there. The first goes
He was probably referring to the pompous fools at NASA who oversaw the Challenger investigation.
The quote was from Richard Feynman, and I deleted Hermitian’s comment because it implicitly motivated others to waste their time to look up the Feynman comment to prove Hermitian wrong, which he is. I don’t know the date of the Feynman quote, but it was in a book about him published in 1985. The Challenger Shuttle disaster was in 1986.
The second comment is like the first one, an invitation for others to waste their time in reply:
What’s a Krosis ?
Does it bloom ?
Hermitian can look up Krosis as easily as anyone else, and if he already knows the answer, then the comment can only be there to attract a response—the essence of troll.
He was probably referring to the pompous fools at NASA who oversaw the Challenger investigation.
What’s a Krosis ?
Does it bloom ?
With the dna sequences being unique to an individual, and undecipheral from some of the sequence, it would be pure guess work, to develop a weapon that works on the one person in the world that contains all of the right sequences.
“In October 2006, the X Prize Foundation established an initiative to promote the development of full genome sequencing technologies, called the Archon X Prize, intending to award $10 million to “the first Team that can build a device and use it to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less, with an accuracy of no more than one error in every 100,000 bases sequenced, with sequences accurately covering at least 98% of the genome, and at a recurring cost of no more than $10,000 (US) per genome.”[89]”
No accurate enough, in my opinion.
What’s vague about the Major Media colluding to publish a fake LFCOLB for Obama?
The three Amigos RC, NBC and WKV have claimed that Xerox Workcenters place a hidden comment “YCbCr” in scan to PDF files. They also have claimed that this label (or marker) is exclusive to Xerox Work centers.
Proof that the YCbCr label is not unique to Xerox is now in hand. I am posting a link for an availble document (available on the internet) which was not created by a Xerox but which has the YCbCr label.
See: http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Enforcement%20Actions%20DL/FinalFiled_NOP_NOC-226.pdf
This PDF document is 49 pages. It contains many layers.
A search of the PDF document (for the YCbCr label) returned two instances of the comment.
The document was created using Microsoft Word (Windows) and converted to PDF using Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word.
There is no indication that the document was ever touched by a Xerox or by MAC OS Preview.
Not only does this PDF file contain the YCbCr label but also the Quantization and Huffman tables are identical to those of the Obama LFCOLB.
I will be writing a short report today which I will post on Scribd.
The METADATA from the new PDF document is provided below.
Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word
2014-03-03T18:00:27-05:00
2009-12-30T13:30:33-05:00
2014-01-13T12:45:58-05:00
Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows)
application/pdf
Joe Emde
Notice of Alleged Violation and Sanction
uuid:8cdfbacc-880b-4c53-911e-b9fa3f5b4119
uuid:04ce8e63-cd44-40d4-9440-267ac1fb3f08
3
NERC
D:20091230183022
PDF-XChange Viewer;2.5.211.0;Jun 17 2013;09:19:35;D:20140303180027-05’00’
The bottom line is that the YCbCr label cannot be exclusive to Xerox Workcenters.
Consequently, the claim of exclusivity, voiced over and over by the three Amigos, is false.
The new reality is that there is absolutely no proof that the Obama LCOLB was created on a Xerox.
Facts really are as hard as diamonds.
As always, the comment editor ate most of the METADATA in my previous post.
The Obots have never figured out how to fix this problem.
Fortunately, Amazon knows their stuff.
You can find the same post here:
http://www.amazon.com/sensible-examination-Obama-LFCOLB-file/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx1R9VV7LL35QA2/1/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299&authToken=&cdSort=newest
The METADATA from the new PDF is posted there intact.
Hermitian, once again you’re talking out of your ass. Not only did they prove the xerox theory to be true, it was done in a way that can be replicated over and over again. Your claims, on the other hand, have zilch to back them up.
So, Hermie, what do you think of the fact, as hard as Diamond Head, that Hawaii says Pres. Obama was born there?
Let me get this straight… Birfers maintain that the layered artifacts cannot be produced by creating a PDF on a scanner/copier; science proves that said artifacts can, in fact, be produced on a specific model of scanner copier; Birfoons NOW maintain that, because OTHER models MAY ALSO produce those artifacts… what? What am I missing?
The COLB and the LFBC exist; PDF copies of these forms have been made and distributed. Any artifacts in those COPIES are irrelevant. The originals are maintained by the duly vested authorities in Hawaii, which authorities have verified their existence and authenticity. That’s the ball game, Birfoons. Whining about electronic images of the certificates will not avail you.
But not nearly has hard as your head.
Hermie, you forget the entire premise was that it was not possible to reproduce the PDF with the same features by regular scanning. RC, NBC, Ken and the others showed it was possible with equipment known to be in use at the White House. Whether another method is possible does not diminish the fact that the testing destroyed the “not possible” claim.
The entire premise was that the PDF was assembled by a cut-and-paste job and could not have been made by a standard copier simply making a copy. RC, Ken, and NBC proved that a copy of the certified original could be done by the Xerox machine known to be in the White House. Hermie has now proved that a copy of the certified original could be made on other equipment.
Way to go Hermie.
Not Universe-shattering, but Zullo-shattering.
By the way Hermie, why do you refuse, absolutely refuse, to deal with the fact, as hard as Diamond Head, that Hawaii says the President was born there?
So you have demonstrated (I guess) that not only can a Xerox duplicate what Zullo thought meant forgery, but other processes can too.
Thanks for contributing to the proof of the incompetence of Zullo and the Cold Case Posse.
It didn’t eat “most” of the metadata in your previous post; it ate all of it because this is a TEXT editor, not a RICH TEXT editor. It’s not a defect.
The PDF file
See: http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Enforcement%20Actions%20DL/FinalFiled_NOP_NOC-226.pdf
has monochrome layers which were compressed with JBIG2. Other monochrome layers were compressed with Flate.
The file was not touched by a Xerox Workcenter or MAC OS Preview.
Facts are as hard as diamonds…
So why don’t you ask Amazon how they do it ?
NBC’s blog has the same problem…
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
The new premise…
I have demonstrated that the forger could have assembled the LFCOLB in Microsoft Word (by digital cut and paste of bits and pieces taken from other documents) and then saved it as a PDF file by means of
CreatorTool||Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word
and
Producer||Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows).
It’s not rocket science.
The rest is just cover up.
Facts are still hard as diamonds.
Like maybe ignoring and discrediting the real forger? Would that qualify as obstruction of justice? I get the impression that those two investigators introduced a month ago might actually investigating Zullo and Arpaio.
About a month ago I was able to post on the BirtherReport website, for the first time, without my posts being censored and/or deleted altogether. And, now the MCCCP wants to transfer to a new webhost?
Hmm…….
http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com
This thread is not about your crazy conspiracy theory Nancy. This thread is about the political witch hunts that Sheriff Arpaio and his friend, County Attorney (now disbarred) Andrew Thomas participated in, which is costing our county many millions of dollars in reparations. This has NOTHING to do with your Birther fantasies.
I never said I had any faith in Arapio.
I never said I had any faith in BR or “Falcon.” My guess was that “Falcon” is “Zullo.” I have no proof, of course. When I get a subpoena at my door is when it will matter. Until then, it’s just rhetoric. Can you tell me why should I care?
http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com
Classified, to protect the guilty. God forbid if Daddy Sessions and many political others were to be forced to disclose the truth about their “precious” children and their own dirty deeds. And, don’t tell me this isn’t connected to the birther issue. It most certainly is.
The slaughters continue unabated because as the cartels already know, American men are nothing but a bunch of greedy, perverted cowards.
I killed Tiffany Sessions with a broken concrete block to the head behind Hickory Hills, Gainesville, Florida while her confused partner-in-crime watched. She was scalped. I don’t know what they did with her body.
Pablo Escobar, The True American King.
Shoddy? Nancy Ruth Owens is a killer journalist!
Nancy Ruth Owens is the #1 Serial Killer who has earned a degree in Journalism.
Yeah, with emphasis on the word “Killer.” LMAO!
Yep, Really. Do you see how fast they closed out the Tiffany Sessions case after twenty-five years of “Oh, poor, poor Daddy Sessions?” Sympathy for a greiving father/family member goes a long way and Daddy Sessions didn’t give that Pity Card up with much relish, I can assure you.
Read between the lines here.
Anyone who watches my posts in this forum knows that I claimed Tiffany Sessions murder about a month or so ago and that it was an act of self-defense. Who set her on me? Well, much like the history of King Obama, we’ll never know, now will we?
http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com
Why am I not surprised that RC views this guys as some sort of expert! *wiping away tears of laughter* So desperate is RC to avoid that prison cell.
Did I miss the part where he’s some sort of expert? Did he deliberately leave it out to play silly “gotcha” games or does he simply just not have any? (Print screen, copy, paste to paint, save for records).
The documents are forged and I forged them in 1985.
http://www.iforgedobamasbirthcertificates.com
King. Usurper implies he took over via force which he didn’t. The government drug dealers needed to cover their own tushes ASAP. Mexican Drug War. What Mexican Drug War?
You wish. I’ve had my hand raised since the late 70’s when I shot Che Che in the groin (fatal) in Clewiston, Florida, Hendry County.
You thinking skills leave much to be desired, or maybe your built-in bias is bending your reasoning and comprehension skill out of straight-forward alignment.
Foreign (Visa Card) guests of the U.S. government are NOT subject to its sovereign authority over its own citizens…AND its immigrants (Green Card permanent residents.) All of them who are male are *fully* subject if within a certain age range. The subjection required by the 14th Amendment was and is full, complete subjection. Former slaves were fully subject because they were under no foreign subjection whatsoever.
But foreign guests are not subject, cannot be drafted, cannot be ordered to observe U.S. sanctions, pay income taxes, sign-up for Obamacare, nor to not visit banned nations. They ARE NOT SUBJECT.
[This is nonsense. Anyone who has a green card is subject to the draft, and the only reason other foreigners are not drafted is just because that is how the law reads, not because we lack jurisdiction. During the Civil War we drafted foreigners. Further even non-resident aliens (those without green cards) are subject to income tax. See: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens . Doc]
They are subject to their own government, -in the nation where they live.
a.r.nash ruminates:
~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.
That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s citizenship.
Also, who they are determines what one is *not*.
From that standpoint, one can make an analogy of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.
1. One is either *born live*, possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents, -or a widowed American mother; or…
2. one is *born adopted*, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
3. one is *born dead*, -with the political DNA of a NON-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government allowed in the country on a temporary Visa instead of a Green Card which makes one a fellow member of American society, -albeit without citizen privileges.
So… in regard to presidential eligibility:
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen due to birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. -uncontested.
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.
(4) Only those born subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.
What could be clearer? It’s natural unassailable fact, and natural and national law.
Who disagrees, and with what exactly? No non-specific weasel-word complaints are worthy of response.
Your perception of the reality in regards to this president is skewed at best, lets reveal some facts about his economic policies, since many blame Bush or claim the president is doing a great job here are the last four years of Bush vs the first four years of Obama;
Yearly budget deficit;
Bush $696,281,000 ,000
Obama $2,360,809,000,000
239% increase
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Cost to taxpayer from the SNAP program
Bush $134,791.890,000
Obama $276,002,620,000
104.76% increase
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
Bankruptcy of US businesses
Bush 165,081
Obama 205,000
24% increase
http://news.abi.org/sites/default/files/statistics/QuarterlyUSBusinessFilingsbyYear1994-2012_0.pdf
Number of people actually employed per year collectively
Bush 8601490
Obama 6735775
-21.69% a decrease
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
But here is my favorite, the total national debt
Up to and including 2008 $10.025 trillion
Obama over 17 trillion. Do I need a link for this also or is this understood?
Yes, in five scant years his leadership has raised our entire national debt since our nation started borrowing money by 70%. Great leadership.
If we have all these new hires and unemployment is really down, explain how that is possible? It is almost laughable except it is a tragedy.
So, how does someone create a socialist society, government run and dependent nation? Spend more than you have, borrow, go insolvent, thus when the economy crashes people have no choice but create bigger government because of dependency. This is how to fundamentally transform America?
He approves of gay rights? Here is another example of what does Obama really stand for, it is a video clip from CNN who is friendly to him, at least now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzaOkO0HnGY
The Truth, your own links do not even support your own conclusions.
Let’s take the Adelphi…
He adjusts for inflation, but here it is…
Average Change in Deficit
George W Bush: $117,760,599,537
Barack Obama: -$179,644,858,785 (which means that Obama actually reduced the deficit from when he took office by an average of $179 billion a year).
Hear that. Obama has actually reduced the deficit from when he took office, rather than expanded it. By the way, that stat I took is actually displayed above the stat that you selectively added. So, you must have read it, but chose to ignore it on the basis of it not proving your point.
Your selective stats mean absolutely nothing. I can take stats from that same exact page, and it shows a much fuller picture. I haven’t checked your other links, but I’m presuming that you are just as selective in your stats that you choose.
Good, let me know what you come up with on the federal debt also.
I have statistics that back up this statement, but they also imply that President Obama has been the second most fiscally responsible president in recent history. If you look at the change in the deficit under budgets written during a president’s administration (arguably the way in which the president exerts the most control over the budget), Republicans have increased the deficit by over $1.7 trillion since Carter took office and Democrats will have lowered the deficit by nearly $1.3 trillion* if projections for the rest of the Obama administration are accurate. He’s no Clinton, but it looks like President Obama will have erased most of the Bush deficit by the time he leaves office. You may not like his other policies, but you have to give him his props on the deficit.
* Based on Treasury Department numbers for total money collected and spent by the Federal Government.
Let’s take a look at recent presidents…
FY 2013 (Obama): 680 Billion Deficit – 52.1% decrease
FY 2009 (Bush): 1412.7 Billion Deficit – 1100.0% increase
FY 2001 (Clinton) : 128.2 Billion Surplus – 150% decrease
FY 1993 (Bush Sr.) : 255.1 Billion Deficit – 67.1% increase
FY 1989 (Reagan) : 152.6 Billion Deficit – 93% increase
FY 1981 (Carter): 79.0 Billion Deficit – 47% increase
FY 1977 (Ford): 53.7 Billion Deficit
So, if you’re ranking them by how much they increase or decrease the deficit. You have the following…
Clinton (150% decrease)
Obama (52% decrease)
Carter (47% increase)
Bush Sr. (67% increase)
Reagan (93% increase)
Bush Jr. (1100% increase)
Barack Obama has reduced the budget deficit by 52% from the time that he took office (remember, the budget for FY 2009 was passed in 2008, implemented in 2008, and was under the control of President Bush when it was implemented.
So actually, I was wrong—President Obama is already ahead of President Clinton in deficit reduction by a score of $732.7 billion to $383.3 billion. And assuming that President Obama knocks another $300 billion give or take off of the deficit then you’ll end up with the $1.7 trillion increase under Republicans and the $1.3 trillion decrease under Democrats that I said.
The question is will The Truth accept that President Obama has done a better job on the budget than any of his recent predecessors?
Slartibartfast; most ignorant statement about the deficit , obama only decreased it by 52 % ? Compared to his own previous deficit of stimulus spending . When Obama took office our national debt was 9 trillion, today it is over 17 trillion. Azide from birther talk, saying Obama spends less then Obama is a foolish argument. Obama has incurred as much debt as all other Presidents combined . Funny how the extreme left plays with numbers to distort the truth .
All appropriations and revenues are under the control of Congress. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “Obama increased the deficit.”
The president has veto power to stop the excess debt accumulation, why does he not use it? He said himself “The buck stops here” ( which is a line taken from another president), it is his spending policy that has been the issue. During his campaign he blamed Bush for raising the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion, we now stand at nearly 18 trillion under Obama?
This post was about violent statements by some insane people who want civil war. I suppose the debt is relevant to the issue, the reason the debt is out of control is war. I do blame Bush for wars that were started because of WMD that did not exist, I believe it was mainly due to Cheney’s lust for blood. Reagan built a debt with military spending which in turn caused the Soviet Union to fall, which in my opinion was worth it, a cold war nuclear catastrophe was avoided. I gave Clinton credit for his financial responsibility, he was a leader that showed responsibility to our financial future, there is no way I would ever say that about Obama. The worst part is, we will not know for another decade just how much damage the Affordable Health Care act will do to create a larger debt due to Obama. The health care system was broken but this law was not properly thought out and administered in a professional manner, for that I blame the Democrats. The republicans are also guilty because they offered no solution to the problems, they just ignored them. The two party system divide is broken at best, so threaders, please try to avoid all lefty righty superiority comments, we need a leader that will fix the problems. Like Obama said “The buck stops here”, that is a correct statement.
If he had a line item veto that might be an effective strategy but vetoing an omnibus spending bill would only make the craziness in Washington worse.
Not surprisingly, your numbers are wrong.
At the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year (the last fiscal year for which Clinton was responsible), the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. At the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal years (the last fiscal year from which Bush was responsible). the debt stood at $11.9 trillion, an increase of about 105%. So the debt increased from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion under Bush, not “$5 trillion to $9 trillion” as you claim.
Under Obama the debt has increased from $11.9 trillion to about $17.5 trillion now, an increase of 47%, compared to a $105% increase under Bush.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Remember, it was Bush who went to war without raising the funds to pay for it. It was Bush who inherited a budget surplus and immediately turned it into a deficit. It was Obama who inherited the worst economic situation this country has seen since the Great Depression. Obama also had to govern with an opposition party which was determined to oppose everything which he proposed.
And I’m still waiting for you to address the lies you spread about Obama’s mother.
That’s of course an overly simplistic way to look at debt accumulation. It sounds as if you are not very familiar with the impact of such an approach on both the credit worthiness of the United States, as well as our ability to pay those to whom we owe moneys.
The existence of our debt is far less relevant than the impact of rushed approaches on our future. But if you want to insist that our President should destroy our Nation, then why are you so upset that he doesn’t?
Not surprisingly perhaps you cannot read? I said “During his campaign he blamed Bush for raising the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4
I never said what the debt was, I repeated what Obama said, so if it is not accurate it comes from a man that himself is not accurate. He called Bush a traitor, what does that make him now? Even by your numbers he has increased the debt nearly the same dollar amount as Bush in six years and has two years left!!! He will set the record, no doubt about it.
Your kidding right? The US treasury takes in roughly 3 trillion a year, we owe nearly 18 trillion. We are insolvent, go ask a banker if they would make that loan for you with the same ratio numbers. It is laughable. If the US government did not spend one dime it would take six years to pay that money back. It is an unserviceable amount, the credit worthiness of the US was dropped, deservedly so. If we do not stop deficit spending soon we will not be able to pay the interest on that amount, as a matter of fact, if the interest rate wasn’t so low right now we would be toast already.
My last link was broken;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
And I stand corrected, he did not say Bush was a traitor, he said he was “unpatriotic”, my apologies to Mr Obama for the misquote.
Well Keith you want to blame Libertarian for the failures of the current school system. Libertarian don’t run the California school system or the New York school system. It may influence the Arizona school system so you may have an argument as to your state. My state just recently let kids choose to go to schools they wanted instead of by their mailing address. Apparently you agree that it is a step in the right direction. Is there some failures in the Libertarian philosophy? I would concede that there are, but you want to completely demonize it for failures caused by Republicans and Democrats.
But its not about choice of where your child goes JRC. As mentioned several times, thats not an issue. It’s actually the Libertarians demanding to “control” where their money goes and Cutting funding to schools with low grade averages and rewarding schools with high grade averages, creating a class of massively funded Schools and massively underfunded schools rather than equal funding across the board, which is apparently socialism.
And stop bringing up California. California hasnt had control of its finances since Republicans and Libertarians tricked everyone into passing the law that they needed a supermajority to raise takes. If anything. California shows the folly of the “If Surplus CUT TAXES. If Deficit CUT TAXES” view of economics. They are finally running a surplus now after FINALLY getting enough power to actually raise a tax. (Simplistic view I know but come on…)
Suranis, the whole U.S. school system is failing. It’s not the Libertarians fault. You may disagree with the fixes that Libertarian would try, but it’s not the Libertarians fault. We don’t control any state government not the House or Senate. So to put the blame on Libertarians is a cop out by those that actual do run it. That is my point. Disagree with us, that is fine. But don’t blame us for what was ruined by Republican and Democrats.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp
Suranis, check out this chart. Notice the adjusted for inflation part of it. Compare per pupil expenditure in 1985 to 2009. Do you see a problem there? Where is the return on the investment?
I don’t care what the total average is, JRC. If the AVERAGE is going up, how come schools are winding up underfunded? If the AVERAGE income in the US is up, how come half the US population earns so little money they are below the threshold for paying federal taxes? And how come half the US’s Income is earned by less than 10% of the population?
Averages disguise systemic problems. If, theoretically, most of the money is getting sucked into just 5% of schools, the entire education system will fail. That’s the danger of putting out raw average numbers from across the entire US.
As I and others have said, talking in terms of allowing people to choose where their children go to school is NOT the issue and never was.
Basically to sort out the US education system, you would have to examine how money relates to Academic excellence, how results are fare across the states and which parties are in control of the state, and what policies are being implemented in which state and county, and then you would have to implement what works and ditch what doesn’t. Unfortunately the side who are causing the problems will fight that tooth and nail as it will make them and their ideology look bad.
Underfunded because they are spending more per student. Okay, I guess you don’t understand adjusted for inflation. Even after adjusting for inflation we are spending over 60 percent more per student. Almost 3 times as much without inflation. Adjusted for inflation people are probably making less money compared to 1985, but we are spending more money for education, yet we are falling behind which is the point.
You argument fails. These are public schools not private. Romney and those aren’t sending their kids to one of those schools. So no the money isn’t going to the top 5 percent. We are spending more money, and still failing. But blame the Libertarians.
I would like to see that. Yeah, Democrats and Republicans would fight that tooth and nail.
You clearly don’t understand the point Suranis was making. Average is a bad statistic in this case. You can get a high average by spending enough on a single person’s education while ignoring everyone else. In this case, the mean would be a far better measure and, I suspect, far lower.
Okay, I understand that his point fails. We are talking public schools not private. And as long as these “super rich public” school allow poor kids that don’t live in their “super rich neighborhood” to attend then maybe resources would be distributed equally. But his argument failed on many levels. I’ll address the first. Please show the supposed 5 percent of the public schools that are getting the majority of the money. (No supporting evidence except his “theoretical”). I guess we can just ignore average temperature because hey the days aren’t really getting much warmer.
What kind of math are you guys doing with this average….please explain. I’d like to see how you break it down.
Another thing….we are spending more per student…..60 percent adjusted as I stated, and almost 3 times with it. So why is it costing more for less results? These are hard numbers. And if you can show me a majority of schools that are getting less funding than their 1985 numbers or even spending less than the adjusted for inflation numbers then please do.
I would expect that the “inflation adjustment” over that time period is not really representative. The expenses paid in 1985 for high tech equipment (h/w and s/w) probably doesn’t compare to the 2009 expenses. Additionally, capital expenditures in 1985 lasted a lot longer than capital expenditures in 2009. Nowhere in this discussion is a mention of what I consider an absolute abomination in some schools: an expectation that some teachers pay for supplies for their students out of their own pocket with no reimbursement. Salaries for school administrators have skyrocketed and left teachers’ salaries far behind. I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the students are really getting the short end of the stick while some are really making out.
In the 80’s students didn’t pay for books around here, now they do. I guess that isn’t figured into it. Computers were way more expensive then they are now, don’t you agree? I mean 20 Apples back then is probably more an expense than what they pay for a complete computer lab now.
But either way, we are paying more….whether it’s Admin or whatever and we aren’t getting results. You agree right?
Even with the Chrome Books they are getting next year….the school isn’t paying. It’s the parents. The school might be paying for the cable and wireless routers, but the parents pay for the device, and I imagine the parents will pay for the e-books as well.
Except that a lot of those Apples were given to the schools.
Consider the following two samples:
{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,100}
{10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10}
Both have an average of 10, but the first has a median of 1 and the second has a median of 10.
According to the Census Bureau (by way of Wikipedia) in 2004 the US median income was $60,528 while the mean income was $17,210 less.
If the median amount per student (or, better yet, the minimum amount per student) were behaving in the same manner as you have shown the average to exhibit, then it would strongly support the argument you are making, but I suspect that the actual data would show the median hasn’t increased nearly as markedly.
Dude, that’s just dishonest. We know the schools aren’t doing that. If you can find me one, then please show me a public school spending $100,000 per student. Wow, that was sad.
And today they don’t donate computers? But yes a lot were donated just like today. Even more so….it’s called recycling. (not the top of the line, but very good computers go to schools everyday.)
So we find in our midst another poster with “Analogy Deficit Disorder”. Must be the inability to go outdoors and make a snowman or have a snowball fight.
Illustrating the difference between median and mean with an example is dishonest? After you asked for someone to explain the math?
I made no claim about what the schools are doing, I just said that average was a poor statistic in this instance—because it makes your argument disingenuous. The median is a much more honest statistic in this context.
Please try to understand the points others are making rather than making a knee-jerk response with a straw man attack based on your own ignorance.
That’s quite a generalization. On the basis of what facts do you conclude that the “whole” U.S. school system is failing?
Most of the schools in my predominately middle-class county are very good. Where there are poor-performing schools elsewhere in the state, the reasons tend to be very complex and solutions are not easy. Poor facilities and underpaid teachers in some school districts are just part of the problem. We also have to consider that living in poverty is not conducive to excelling at academics. A home environment which encourages reading and studying and where children do not go to bed hungry is more likely to produce a well-educated student than a home which has none of those advantages.
.
I think the problem with the average funding issue has been illistrated.
As for the different levels of funding
http://www.asha.org/Advocacy/schoolfundadv/Overview-of-Funding-For-Pre-K-12-Education/
That pretty much illustrates that there are marked differences between levels of funding across the US despite the average going up. Finding exactly what levels of funding there are and how that has changed over the last few years would require more time than I am really willing to give this right now.
But it does illustrate the problems of looking at the average and crying foul. Its a LOT more complex.
Agreed…it’s complex and it’s not the Libertarians fault. But as a whole the educational system is failing. Damn I guess I averaged again. Talk to Keith he’s all about it. You know how it’s being destroyed by Libertarians.
Yeah, because your point was not reality.
So that is the reason for kids to be able to go to schools in different districts….DUH. Exactly my point. Wow you guys are dense. But even beside that point, you just quoted something that shows that even the poorest school are funded better than the average in 85.
So who else is messing with the educational system in the name of offering children “choice of where to go to school” which sounds like a line only a Libertarian could love.
Actually, who cares, I’m off to wash my shorts for freedom.
You guys are all backtracking which is fine…..it’s a complicated issues….but you spoke way too soon.
Wow backtracking….love it. Wash your shorts….might be full of something other than freedom.
(I know you said for freedom, but those shorts are full of something)
It wasn’t an example.
JRC, now you are being desperate. If you look at your own table you will see (Real, adjusted dollars)
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_06.asp
1985 $3,222 $6,539
Last I checked $4000 is less than $6,539. That means that on that spread ($4000 to $10,000 present day dollars) that something like 30% – 40% of schools are getting LESS funding in real terms than 1985.
Look, you’re a libertarian we, get it. There are somethings that I even agree with Libertarians about. But when you start throwing desperate howlers like this you make yourself look silly. Teachers and public education are not the enemy of self reliance, ok?
You are the desperate one. So where is that $100,000 per pupil public school? You really need to step it up.