11–20 of 74 posts
Needy ... Bay Area ... hahaha!
The Bay Area is bigger than the HN bubble. There are some desperately poor school districts.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/19/140519fa_fact_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bay Area is bigger than the HN bubble. There are some desperately poor school districts.
The federal government spent $683.7 billion in a year on defense alone. maybe they could spare a few million for the children. Relying on private finance to help schools simply will make matters worse from a big picture in a similar way to how Africa became addicted to overseas aid
Did you spend one nanosecond of time doing any research before firing off your oh so pious comment about sparing a few pennies to save the children?
A very quick google found me ed.gov, which is the US Department of Education. Here is an exact quote [1]:
ED currently administers a budget of $67.3 billion
in discretionary appropriations (including
discretionary Pell Grant funding) and operates
programs that touch on every area and level of
education. The Department's elementary and
secondary programs annually serve nearly 16,900
school districts and approximately 50 million
students attending more than 98,000 public
schools and 28,000 private schools. Department
programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study
assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary
students.
And in case you slept thru civics 101 class, the very next paragraph from the ed.gov website points out:
That said, it is important to point out that
education in America is primarily a State and
local responsibility, and ED's budget is only
a small part of both total national education
spending ...
From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?
The US is an illusion.
From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The federal government spent $683.7 billion in a year on defense alone. maybe they could spare a few million for the children. Relying on private finance to help schools simply will make matters worse from a big picture in a similar way to how Africa became addicted to overseas aid
Sigh. Did you spend one nanosecond of time doing any research before firing off your oh so pious comment about sparing a few pennies to save the children? A very quick google found me ed.gov, which is the US Department of Education. Here is an exact quote [1]: ED currently administers a budget of $67.3 billion in discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and operates programs that touc…
From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?
Because:
- Obama is a socialist
- Trickle-down economics is the only thing that works
- Taxing wealth is hating the rich (so basically being a nazi)
- Taxing the wealthy doesn't give them a tax cut like donating money to schools or charities does
- Because taxing job creators just encourages the moochers and takers
(Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until it becomes a way of life)
From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?