The position of a place in relation to other places is generally called its "location", since it is only possible to find the location of something by using other locations as "points of reference".
Little to no safety regulations and many child workers.
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Answer:
The incumbent President Barack Obama was known to have a higher unemployment rate than any other President in the history of the United State. The people weren’t happy due to this at that point in time.
During his re-election campaign he promised to fulfill some demands of the Occupy movement which included reducing the gap between the rich and the poor and some tax cuts. He used this to garner votes and was eventually reelected.
