1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
user100 [1]
3 years ago
10

What is a benefit of a member of congress voting as a politico?

History
2 answers:
Karo-lina-s [1.5K]3 years ago
7 0
The correct answer is B

barxatty [35]3 years ago
3 0
A benefit of a member of congress voting as a politico is B) <span>the member considers all views before voting on the bill.

Hope this helped!</span>
You might be interested in
HELP ASAP!!!!!what statement best describes a characteristic of the chinese calender? a: it is based on the sun b; each year has
kiruha [24]

Answer:

option D - each year is attached to an animal

Explanation:

Eg - 2020- rat

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
23. The Good Neighbor policy would not allow
Paraphin [41]

Answer:

i believe its D it allowed the U.S to interfere in conflicts between Latin American countries

Explanation:

D

3 0
3 years ago
Which two statements explain some Americans' objections to the results of the 2000 presidential election?
LenKa [72]

Two statements which show some American objection to the 2000 Presidential election were:

  • 1. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida recount appeared partisan to many observers.
  • 5. George W. Bush was elected in spite of losing the popular vote.

<h3>What happened in the 2000 Presidential election?</h3>

George Bush was able to beat Al Gore even though he lost the popular vote because he won at the Electoral College.

This caused consternation amongst Americans as well as the ruling by the Supreme Court on the Florida recount appearing to be partisan - in favor of a party.

Find out more on the 2000 Presidential election at brainly.com/question/556024.

4 0
2 years ago
In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual
True [87]

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

5 0
3 years ago
Why did the US intervene in the Korean War
Licemer1 [7]

The USA went to war in Korea for three reasons.  

The first reason was the ‘Domino theory’.   Salami tactics in eastern Europe was not the only place where Communists were coming to power.  In the Far East, too, they were getting powerful China turned Communist in 1949.   Truman believed that, if one country fell to Communism, then others would follow, like a line of dominoes.   He was worried that, if Korea fell, the next ‘domino’ would be Japan, which was very important for American trade.   This was probably the most important reason for America’s involvement in the war.

The second reason was just to try to undermine Communism.   President Truman believed that capitalism, freedom and the American way of life were in danger of being overrun by Communism.   The Truman Doctrine had been one of ‘containment’ – stopping the Communists gaining any more territory.   In April 1950 the American National Security Council issued a report recommending that America abandon 'containment' and start 'rolling back' Communism.   This led Truman to consider driving the Communists out of North Korea.

Finally, Truman realised the USA was in a competition for world domination with the USSR.   By supporting South Korea, America was able to fight Communism without directly attacking Russia.

Hope this helps. 

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the unemployed workers movement?
    14·1 answer
  • How did the outcome of French and Indian War lead to an increase in British policies (taxes) in the American colonies?
    8·1 answer
  • True or false nixson thought that south Vietnam was strong enough to resist a communist takeover, even if American forces were p
    5·1 answer
  • Why did the French plantation owners force African slaves to work without being fed?
    12·1 answer
  • What effect did the Battle of Quebec have on the British and French?<br> 30 POINTS AND BRAINLIEST!!!
    7·1 answer
  • The U.S. fought the War of 1812 against _____.
    15·1 answer
  • How dose the panic of 1837 connect to corporate expansion ?
    15·1 answer
  • Which empire lasted the longest? a. Axum c. Songhai b. Mali d. Zimbabwe Please select the best answer from the choices provided
    13·2 answers
  • Was the Islamic empire and the ottoman empire the same thing?
    5·1 answer
  • How did the geographic distance between Britain and the colonies lead to conflict?
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!