Answer: Clearly I am einstein.
Explanation: My pfp.
The US social welfare system differs markedly from those of western European democracies, a situation that is attributable in large part to America's group of:<u> cultural </u><u>emphasis on</u><u> individualism, </u><u>and federal system of government</u>.
Unlike the American government, European democracies redistribute income among their citizens on a much larger scale. Social and cultural programmes in Europe are more generous and benefit more people. The tax regimes in Europe are more progressive. European laws aimed at defending the underprivileged are more generous.
In the United States, the distribution of before-tax income is more skewed and has a greater volatility. There is no proof that taxes in Europe result in decreased deadweight losses. Additionally, income volatility seems to be less erratic in Europe than it is in the US. However, there's a probability that middle-class households in the US have a higher likelihood of advancing up the income scale, which may make the average voter less in favour of redistribution.
To learn more about European social democracies, refer
brainly.com/question/13824231
#SPJ4
There are definitely pros and cons to all of them
local leaders are closer to the people, but might not make a curriculum strong enough for students to succeed in other areas
states are a better option, but still would have different things taught than other states
the federal government would make a curriculum thats used nationwide, so everybody is educated on the same topic, but depending on what political party is in the gov, education could be skewed to make kids believe party beliefs.
personally I think either the states or the federal gov is the best choice to make decisions about what students learn and how they’re tested
