There are no rules committee in the senate because the committee is not as powerful as its house counterpart, the House Committee on Rules as it does not set the terms of debate for individual legislative proposals, since the senate has a tradition of open debate
Answer:
On an inscription at the riverfront of the Rubicon River, was written, that soldiers, flags, or weapons are not allowed beyond the river
However, knowing that he would have suffered death if he went into Rome alone, and that by crossing the river, the legion and himself are sentenced to death (or could cause a coup) automatically, therefore, by leading about 5,000 men across the Rubicon, then he (and his legion) have cast the die, (their goal is not for Julius Caeser or them to be killed) and it will eventually rest with a side up, therefore, their cause of action has started (which is to go into Rome and preserve themselves) and even if they stop (stop the die) there is still an outcome (punishment/coup), and therefore, there is no going back
Explanation:
2 people respond to the same stressor because for one their different people secondly it depends on how they asses the situation good luck hope i can be of help.....
The first alternative is correct.
Political economy can often be conflicting.
The main instruments of economic policy are monetary policy and fiscal policy. Both can be used to stimulate or discourage the economy. In this way, when they are adopted with the opposite sign, they are an example of conflict, as described in this exercise.
If the government wants to stimulate the economy through increased spending (expansionary fiscal policy), it will be injecting money into the economy. However, the main cause of inflation is excess currency in circulation. Thus, a contractionary monetary policy aims to wipe out the supply of money to contain inflation. That is, the first measure is inflationary to stimulate the economy, but the second is anti-inflationary, however contractionary.
<em>"Suppose the government and the Federal Reserve have conflicting goals. The government wants to encourage economic growth by </em><em>increasing spending</em><em>, but the Federal Reserve wants to decrease inflation by </em><em>decreasing the money supply</em><em>".</em>
As someone working on deliberative democracy and its practices, I think we should not exaggerate electoral accountability. Of course it is better than nothing however it is not an effective way of ensuring a democratic system. At the end of the day, we are talking about a power that can be used every 4 or 5 years. Such power is simply not powerful. The lack of citizen power in politics is a systemic issue. Unless the ideas and perspectives of citizens are transmitted to the political arena, we cannot talk about the power of people.
Education is crucially important. With better education people's voting preferences might have better bases. However, this does not make the system any more democratic than it is now unless people have more chances of effecting the policy making. This needs a better systemic environment than electoral politics. Here, I think deliberative and participatory models offer great ways of political decision-making.
<h3>hope it's help you </h3><h3>plz mark as brain list ........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</h3>
