My remark about public high schools costing more than Catholic high schools was in response to you saying Wadsworth was cheaper than the Elms. You KNOW that, but your pathology still forces you to misrepresent my words, just as your pathology forced you to pretend like I got something wrong because I didn't say Harvard was offering free tuition only to honor students in 2004. You have profound honesty issues.

The only thing I had wrong initially was that Harvard's free tuition isn't for everyone, it's only for people making $60,000 or less. I corrected that myself in my next post after I double-checked. So sue me.

Later.

outright false

King sez….."Anyone whose family makes $60,000 or less goes for free."

I can only read what you write

King sez…."The public schools cost far more than equivalent private schools, for instance."

so that has morphed into public high schools cost more than Catholic high schools

King, all I'm trying to do is keep your sycophants from taking the information you give them and going out and embarrasing themselves.

and look at the thanks I get

But thanks for pointing out that not just anyone can get into Harvard. What a newsflash that was.

from the 2004 piqe website….."If you know of a family earning less than $60,000 a year with an honor student graduating from high school soon, Harvard University wants to pay the tuition."

not quite anyone….just honor students…..we're talking 2004 here

I couldn't get my link to work either. What did work is c&p into the google search and then click on the story

Wadsworth public schools spend $5,689 per student. The tuition at Our Lady of the Elms is $8800. Just saying.

Double-checked the Harvard tuition. Anyone whose family makes $60,000 or less goes for free. That's a lot cheaper than Akron U.

http://www.piqe.org/Assets/Home/Harvard.htm

And yes, it's beside the point. Catholic and charter schools cost less than public schools. I'm talking high school and elementary.

no tuition at Harvard? Then what's this story all about?…….http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/23/harvard-student-loans

Charter schools are mostly cheaper than public schools too. They don't use nuns. Now what ?

tory could get a job in the skool cafeteria

Compare the cost of Akron's Catholic elementary and high schools to Akron's public schools.

You're right and I'm wrong…..the cost of an education at Akron U. is MUCH greater than that at Case Western. I apologize for thinking anything different.

Regarding the schools, you aren't counting the federal funding, which is provided by the taxpayers. Here's a comparison of D.C. schools:

"We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child — on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.

What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.

For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools — among the most upscale in the nation — averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9319

When am I allowed to start complaining about how much government costs ? Am I to wait until the Cost Of Government Day is December 10th, or what ?

But ANWR profits would be American profits instead of say, Saudi Arabian or Iraqi profits. Even you should be able to see the difference.

Krugman is being too modest. I'm pretty sure that Obama has saved the entire solar system, if not the galaxy. Did Krugman bother to say how Obama saved the world ? Was it the, lol, stimulus package that did it ?

Uh, TBomb, is the Taliban running Afghanistan now, as they were before Bush invaded ? I know how you hate it when I state the facts, but…

It's ok that you don't understand the way the money filters back into the states coffers. And it's ok that you don't realize that as the US government cuts taxes the states and cities raise them. (Why? because the Federal taxes fund most everything we do on the local level)

Hey, I am in support of what Obama has done in Afghanistan up to now but what he has done has made it "his" war and he better win it or else what will people think. I just don't like seeing people calling it Bush's war when in the next breath they bad mouth him for taking his eye off Afghanistan. It is Obama's war now and there is no way to blame what happens in the next 6 months on Bush, logically.

After King was good enough to point out how long we pay to get past the national sharing of our wealth you make it sound like the shorter time to state and local governments isn't at all involved.

I am so tired of being called racist ever since I refused to vote for Obama that I wonder why I even bother to say that I wanted him to be successful in every way that didn't include socialist thinking. However, I had nothing to do with him continuing Bush policies in buying out businesses, pushing the stimulus bill through without debate at all, C4C is a part of his doing, and now he is pushing the very unpopular movement toward socialist socialized medicine. No sir, I did nothing to push him there and I don't believe he has pushed these things because of his race. I keep trying to not see him as, at least, part black. It is hard to do when I am constantly told that it is his race that makes me not like him.