6 ms·
> Educational investments shouldn’t be dictated by transient economic conditions. Could someone not make the same argument about the national defense? Educati
by tyree731 6y ago
> Educational investments shouldn’t be dictated by transient economic conditions.
Could someone not make the same argument about the national defense?
Education is funded largely by local taxes, and local tax revenues are being gutted, so there isn't much that can be done here without nationalizing public education.
- catalogia 6y ago> "Could someone not make the same argument about the national defense?" I took that to be the point they were making.
- buzzkillington 6y ago>Education is funded largely by local taxes, and local tax revenues are being gutted, so there isn't much that can be done here without nationalizing public education. This should be the case. Having each state decide it's education is in the long term more dangerous than having each state have it's own army. Imagine if half the country had textbooks that made the Confederates out to be misguided but well meaning... oh wait.
- abootstrapper 6y agoNot sure why you’re being downvoted. I’m from the south and was taught as a child that the confederates fought for “states rights” and slavery was a subplot. Many years later I realized that was bullshit. I wished I could go back in time and call my teacher on it.
- chadash 6y agoIt was fought over states rights. Their rights to allow slaves. Misleading, but not exactly untrue.
- dorchadas 6y agoYep. I teach in a rural school in the South. We still have Social Studies teachers claiming the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It's really damn frustrating. Though textbooks? We haven't had textbook updates in years at this point. Since I was in the school, and I graduated 10 years ago.
- JackFr 6y agoI have friends and in-laws Who still maintain that. Honestly the myth of the lost cause was drilled into the culture for a hundred years.
- disposekinetics 6y agoI think the current system leads to too much stagnation. Let each state be a laboratory of democracy and hope the winning ideas spread instead of mandating a top down approach.
- Spartan-S63 6y agoI don't think we should be opposed to nationalizing education. A common curriculum would help mobility when it comes to families moving across state lines. It would also ensure uniform funding and plentiful opportunities to poorer and rural schools.
- imgabe 6y agoMaybe, but it would require a constitutional amendment to enact. The Constitution is explicit about which powers the Federal government has and everything else is delegated to the states. Education is not one of them.
- tyre 6y agoA large majority of the current US government is made up of things outside the constitution as written. The underpinning of most government agencies is the commerce clause, and even then there is a question of whether Congress delegating to administrative agencies is constitutional. For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution and I'm not saying that because there weren't cell phones or airplanes in 1789.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> For example, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA—these powers aren't in the constitution All three regulate different aspects of interstate commerce.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago"You don't get any federal funding unless you do X Y and Z."
- nostromo 6y ago> common curriculum You mean something like Common Core? We have that.
- dorchadas 6y ago
- malwarebytess 6y ago>Could someone not make the same argument about the national defense? The US's definition of National Defense is actually playing world police for corporate profit. With that in mind it shows that they are superficially similar only.
- a4wtaw4tawtawt 6y agopost like it's 2003?
- RhysU 6y agoNational Defense is a luxury good until it isn't. Moreover, it is not something that can be purchased on short notice.
- darksaints 6y agoProtecting our nation from harm is easy to do. Nearly every nation in the world does it pretty well, and they do it with tiny fractions of our budget. The key is to not run around the world occupying nations and starting new wars every other day. War is and always will be asymmetric. Our military isn't expensive because we need it to be, it is expensive because it is an invasion and occupying force.
- jeffbee 6y agoThe ONE TIME that US national defense actually worked it was very much purchased on short notice.
- culturestate 6y agoUnfortunately, "there are two oceans between us and any potential aggressors" is no longer a viable defensive posture. If you're gonna be drawn into a war today it's unlikely to come with years of lead time.
- xtracto 6y agoAnericans live so scared!
- mhh__ 6y ago> Could someone not make the same argument about the national defense? > national defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Total_military_spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... I'm not as against military spending as some people, but almost 800 billion dollars is too much
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoHow much would be appropriate? What weapons systems should be canceled? Serious question. I would agree that $800B seems ridiculously high, and yet it's not easy to tease apart what should be cut.
- starik36 6y agoKeep in mind that the personnel and benefits take up 39% of the cost.
- ludston 6y agoDeciding that would be the job of the military wouldn't it? That's how cuts usually work. If they need some random on HN to tell them how to do that then they probably shouldn't have the job in the first place.
- latch 6y agoA lot of experts argue for and against aircraft carriers. The against (or at least not so many) argument seem more compelling to this layman.
- ikeyany 6y agoWhatever funding goes to military displays at sporting events can be cut for once. We never had flyovers and 7th-inning-stretch-salutes-to-heroes 20 years ago.
- pfranz 6y agoThe argument that always comes up is that those flights are necessary because they're flight time required for training and public events are recruiting tools since we have a volunteer force. However, reducing the number of pilots/planes mean fewer training missions and reducing the military headcount reduces the need for recruitment.
- yalogin 6y agoYeah but the US pays for national defense only to fund corporations continuously with unneeded weapon manufacturing so that the respective politicians in those districts can keep winning. There is really no national defense reasons there.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoWhat's an example of an unneeded weapons system?
- chadash 6y agoF-35 program. There are much better uses for $1.5 trillion.
- pfranz 6y agoIt was pretty widely circulated that tanks were still being manufactured that were not wanted by the military: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists https://www.foxnews.com/politics/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-...
- yalogin 6y agoI thought this was common knowledge to everyone and not at all controversial :) There are multiple reports over the years that the military is not asking for weapons but they are being assigned 100s of billions worth. If you are interested please dig it out.
- madengr 6y agoFederal revenue will be gutted too, it’s just that the states can’t print money.
- pmorici 6y agoFederal tax revenues are also being gutted its just that the federal government has the magical power of having control over the currency in which they issue their debt.