4 ms·

?? For education expenditure, US spends about $1.1T, of which only $0.11T comes from federal gov't and $1T from state/local gov't in FY2018. It's pretty muc

?? For education expenditure, US spends about $1.1T, of which only $0.11T comes from federal gov't and $1T from state/local gov't in FY2018. It's pretty much ALWAYS been the case that local/state gov't's pay for education expenses (often tied to property taxes). The national defense budget for FY2018 is $0.87T and comes out of the federal budget only. Comparing the two at federal level makes no sense. note: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USrn_19rs2n_2030#usgs302 https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USrn_...

jorge-d 8y ago
You're indeed right. But the fact that the US Federal government always find money to feed its military while cutting the other departments [1] (including education) doesn't change the underlying fact that Education has a lesser priority than the Military in Washington DC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget#Department_and_program_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Where is your proof that the gov't is taking money away from education to fund the national defense? The US spending per pupil is second highest according OECD study (see https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm), after a wealth city-state Luxembourg whose GDP per capita is $110K. Countries like Finland, South Korea which routinely rank top in various international tests and studies spend far less and achieve much better results than the US, so the problem here isn't just about funding.
- sparrish 8y ago
  The Federal government has a constitutional obligation to defend the country. Education is not in the constitution and has always been chiefly a state and local burden.
  - jorge-d 8y ago
    Unfortunately the U.S Army is not just about "defend the country". The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. I believe a great part of those funds would be better spent elsewhere.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  This is a common response and fundamentally misunderstands the legal, jurisdictional and functional roles of the Federal, State and Municipal governments. "Federalism" is a foundational tenet of the United States Constitution and system of organization so it's important to understand in depth: https://education.findlaw.com/curriculum-standards-school-funding/the-roles-of-federal-and-state-governments-in-education.html https://education.findlaw.com/curriculum-standards-school-fu... If your argument is that education should be a constitutional right, and thus funded by the federal government, then that's a different argument than simply "finding the money." Is that the argument you're making?
  - jorge-d 8y ago
    My argument was that cutting funds for education (even if I understand that it's a state-level prerogative to handle education) while raising funds for the army is a bad signal.

jorge-d 8y ago

You're indeed right. But the fact that the US Federal government always find money to feed its military while cutting the other departments [1] (including education) doesn't change the underlying fact that Education has a lesser priority than the Military in Washington DC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget#Department_and_program_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...

tooltalk 8y ago
Where is your proof that the gov't is taking money away from education to fund the national defense? The US spending per pupil is second highest according OECD study (see https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm), after a wealth city-state Luxembourg whose GDP per capita is $110K. Countries like Finland, South Korea which routinely rank top in various international tests and studies spend far less and achieve much better results than the US, so the problem here isn't just about funding.
sparrish 8y ago
The Federal government has a constitutional obligation to defend the country. Education is not in the constitution and has always been chiefly a state and local burden.
- jorge-d 8y ago
  Unfortunately the U.S Army is not just about "defend the country". The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. I believe a great part of those funds would be better spent elsewhere.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
This is a common response and fundamentally misunderstands the legal, jurisdictional and functional roles of the Federal, State and Municipal governments. "Federalism" is a foundational tenet of the United States Constitution and system of organization so it's important to understand in depth: https://education.findlaw.com/curriculum-standards-school-funding/the-roles-of-federal-and-state-governments-in-education.html https://education.findlaw.com/curriculum-standards-school-fu... If your argument is that education should be a constitutional right, and thus funded by the federal government, then that's a different argument than simply "finding the money." Is that the argument you're making?
- jorge-d 8y ago
  My argument was that cutting funds for education (even if I understand that it's a state-level prerogative to handle education) while raising funds for the army is a bad signal.