Answer:
The statement states that taxes paid by the population to reduce the national debt will be converted into benefits for the population itself. So, in the end, the population is not spending money, just putting it in different places.
Explanation:
National debt is the term that refers to the debts that the government of a country has to finance works and improvements in the country that cannot be paid with the taxes paid alone. However, this debt will be paid by the collection of taxes, which may become higher, so that these works can be carried out. In a simplified way, governments understand that the expenses of the national debt must be paid by the generations of citizens who will benefit from these expenses, as this allows the population not to lose money, but to exchange it for benefits, that is, the national debt reallocates the population's money in works and actions that will improve the lives of this population, for this reason, governments claim that the national debt is like taking money out of the left pocket and putting it in the right pocket.
The answer is "<span>Stimulus Discrimination".
“us” in the above question stands for </span><span>unconditioned stimulus. </span>Discrimination is a term
utilized as a part of both operant and classical conditioning. It includes the
capacity to recognize between one stimulus and similar stimuli. In the two
cases, it implies just reacting to specific stimuli yet not to those that are
similar.
<em>How do you think Voltaire's trip to England was a turning point for him and for the Enlightenment? </em>
He was influed by the freedom (by the time's standards) he found in England comparing to France.
<em>Why do you think Denis Diderot said that an intolerant man is an evil man? Do you agree? Explain your answer. </em>
Yes, I agree. Because to be intolerant means not to listen to the other side and acknowldege their right to have a different opinion, this can lead to de-humanization of the opponent to the point of justifying any evil act towards him/her.
<em>Why do you think the philosophes never recognized their own prejudices about women? </em>
Maybe they are the product of their time, they are humans, and as any normal human being they are/were failable. Sometimes they could see things that no-one had ever seen before but sometimes they failed to acknowledge their mistakes and their times' mistakes.
Answer:
you still need help or you got it? its been 5 months
Explanation:
