Answer:a. Pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, termination
Explanation:
Precontemplation - this is the stage in which people are not inclined towards taking any action to change anytime soon. They are still not convinced that they have a problem or that their behaviour will have a negative outcome. They are more concerned about the negative effect the change will bring to them and not paying attention to the positive results it would bring if they were to change their behaviour.
Contemplation -This is the stage where they start to consider changing in the future, they start to think about it.
Their eyes start to open up to the fact that their behaviour is probably negative. They start to equally evaluate both advantages and disadvantages of changing this behaviour.Eventhough they are thinking about changing their behaviour but at this point they are still resistant towards changing.
Preparation (Determination) - This is the stage where they are ready to start the path towards changing their behaviour within 30 days. They take baby steps because they can now understand that it would be healthy to do so.
Action - now they have acted and want to continue on the same direction they may start engaging in different healthy behaviors .
Maintenance - They working towards ensuring that they don't go back to the same behavior so they striving to make sure they keep what they have achieved.
Termination - this is the stage in which they are truly over their former negative behaviors. They have completely eliminated this behaviour. They are sure they will never return back however it said that this is a difficult stage to reach hence most people stay at the maintenance stage.
The problem boils down to money, but I am assuming you are looking for the causes of the problem.
<span>1. Social Security was never indexed correctly to accommodate the growing life expectancy on those drawing on it. The age at which you can collect should have changed in concert with the life expectancy of the population, or the amount of the benefits should have been decreased if they wanted to keep the age at which you receive it from keeping pace with lefe expectancy. </span>
<span>2. The growth in income inequality has led to vast amounts of money being earned by fewer people and the tax on social security has a limit so any income over the limit is not subject to the tax. Right now that cap is around 109k/year...so someone making 125k/year pays the same amount into social security as someone making 10 million a year. As more wealth is concentrated with fewer people, even vast increases in income and/or wealth yields little increase to the amount collected via the SS tax. </span>
<span>3. Not necessarily on the scale as 1 and 2 above but fraud is also a cause of the monetary shortfall. There are those that cheat the system. Every so often you will hear stories of people getting caught in social security fraud rings where they collect either through identity theft or other criminal means. You also have people that will collect when a relative passes away. They will purposely not report the death or provide invalid SS information so they will continue to receive the deceased person's benefits long after they have died. </span>
<span>As far as a solution, you are stuck with the eventuality of either decreasing benefits, raising the retirement age, or increasing the amount of taxes collected...none of which are likely to fly in Congress. Programs like SS rely on growing the base of people from which you are collecting, but at some point this does not happen. Population growth is not automatic and even with population growth, the concentration of income at the top percent of people offsets any such growth. It may be considered a very progressive/liberal thought, but eliminating the cap on income from which SS tax is collected would help. You can still keep the cap on SS benefits meaning the people at the top of the income ladder would be paying far more than they would get out of it in 10 lifetimes...but this would neutralize the income inequality impact on the system. To be honest, if there was an easy solution, we would have done it by now.</span>
C - He feared the control Standard Oil had in the market.
Roosevelt wanted to break up Standard Oil so they would not be able to form a monopoly and control the market.
Answer: A. to satisfy both large and small states and ensure that neither has an unequal level of power.
Explanation:
The Congress of the United States of America is divided into two chambers; the House of Representatives and the Senate; both are in charge of directing the legislative branch.
The Senate, also known as the upper house, is represented by two senators from each state (regardless of the state's population). And, in the House of Representatives, known as the lower house, the number of representatives depends on the population of each state.
This divide is because states with small populations did not want their states to have less power in Congress, and states with larger populations feared they were not well represented.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
