Answer:
When many Americans think about government bureaucracies, negative stereotypes immediately come to mind – adjectives such as “red tape-bound,” “impersonal,” “unresponsive,” “lethargic,” and “undemocratic” are associated with those stereotypes. Similarly, bureaucrats themselves are often labeled as “lazy,” “incompetent,” “insensitive,” and “power hungry.” However, even though many Americans carry these negative stereotypes around in their reservoir of thinking, most adults in the workforce are employed by some type of private, public or nonprofit bureaucracy and depend on government bureaucracies for a wide range of services provided by such bureaucracies as schools, hospitals, fire and police agencies, the U.S. Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, etc. Without bureaucracy, very little in the way of public services would be provided in modern society. In addition, the social, economic and ecological sustainability we need to promote all depend on the institutional sustainability of those entities of state and local government, which endeavor to organize and implement government policies and programs.
Explanation: Despite the broadcast media’s inordinate focus on the national government, state and local governments actually create and implement the vast majority of public policy, often serving as critical linkages between elected and administrative personnel working at all levels of U.S. government. The number of sub-national governmental units, particularly special districts, continues to grow vigorously in the United States. New units of government reflect growing and changing demands on the part of local communities. More extensive government often means a greater number of elected officials and public administrators (or bureaucrats). For the reader interested in careers in state and local government, employment opportunities in public administration experienced tremendous growth over the past decade and this workforce expansion involved the creation of opportunities for persons possessing a wide variety of skill sets and abilities.
Because, like America, England, and some other countries, China did not like what Germany was doing. they were forcing christianity on people, on jewish men and women, and they didnt like that so they rebeled, and when that happened, they started bombing places making camps to "enslave" in a way, the Jews because they did not accept there religion. in a way, they were the bullies, and America, China, England, and France, did not like that, so they declared war to protect the innocents.
<span>Energy of electrons depends on light's frequency, not intensity.</span>
Answer:
If we sacrifice ourselves for the charity of others that's how we will find happiness in our lives. We must do this before finding true happiness according to Aristotle.
Explanation: Have a great day
Answer:
- The Great Compromise (also known as the Connecticut Compromise)
- The Three-Fifths Compromise
The two compromises affected the way a state's representation in Congress would be determined.
Explanation:
Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787.
The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.