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
forsale [732]
2 years ago
11

How can government help and harm their people

History
2 answers:
bogdanovich [222]2 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Government can help the people by providing healthcare and giving income to the poor. They can also help give all children education and adults jobs. Government help keep laws in order and secure our country.

A government can harm people by increasing taxes. A corrupted government can harm people by taking away their rights and creating a unequal society. A government can also harm their people by spreading false rumors and keeping the truth away from the citizens.

Genrish500 [490]2 years ago
6 0
Concern for the poor is often equated with expanding government. In reality, government policies often make it difficult for those striving to make ends meet.

Many of the policies drive up consumer prices, such as for food and energy, which disproportionately hurt the poor, or create artificial obstacles to jobs.

All levels of government—local, state, and federal—need to look honestly at how they contribute to the poverty problem.
You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP FAST Why did President Lincoln oppose a compromise that would extend slavery into the west?
bija089 [108]

“In politics Mr Lincoln told the truth when he said he had ‘always hated slavery as much as any Abolitionist’ but I do not know that he deserved a great deal of credit for that for his hatred of oppression & wrong in all its forms was constitutional – he could not help it,” wrote Attorney Samuel C. Parks, a longtime friend of Abraham Lincoln.1 Contemporary Robert H. Browne recalled Abraham Lincoln telling him in 1854: “The slavery question often bothered me as far back as 1836-40. I was troubled and grieved over it; but the after the annexation of Texas I gave it up, believing as I now do, that God will settle it, and settle it right, and that he will, in some inscrutable way, restrict the spread of so great an evil; but for the present it is our duty to wait.”2

Browne came to know Mr. Lincoln as a teenage assistant in the Bloomington law office of David Davis and Asahel Gridley. “One evening as I sat and talked with him in the office, in order to answer his question as to what was the groundwork on my belief on slavery, I told him what I knew and has seen of it in the mild slaveholding city of St. Louis, and what my father knew about it for several years.” Browne recalled that he “talked an hour, with frequent questions interspersed by Mr. Lincoln, who was deeply interested in every fact and feature of this slavery business in the city of St. Louis, as we saw and understood it for so many years. When I had finished, he was in deep and profound study, and I thought perhaps he had fallen asleep. I said, in the usual way, not louder than ordinary conversation, ‘Mr. Lincoln, do you wonder that my father and myself were Abolitionists, or do you doubt our sincerity?’ This disclosed that he had not been asleep, but in deep thought. He sat firm, with not so much as a muscle of his face relaxed, as he had done through much of my recital. His face and its firm, drawn expression was like one in pain. He made a motion of some kind with his arm or head, and broke the strain, which, I remember, relieved me very much. He drew out a sighing ‘No. I saw it all myself when I was only a little older than you are now, and the horrid pictures are in my mind yet. I feel drawn toward you because you have seen and know the truth of such sorrow. No wonder that your father told Judge [Stephen A.] Douglas he had nothing but contempt for party platforms or technicalities that held and bound a free man in a free State, directly or remotely, to sustain a system of such unqualified cruelties and horrors….'”3

The Morality and Legality of Slavery

Lincoln often said that he had believed slavery was wrong for as long as he could remember. In a speech in Chicago on July 10, 1858 Lincoln said he of slavery: “I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began.”4 Lincoln scholar Harry V. Jaffa wrote: “For Lincoln…the entire antebellum debate came down to the question of whether the Negro was or was not a human being. If he was a human being, then he was included in the proposition that all men are created equal. If he was included in that proposition then it was a law of nature antecedent to the Constitution that he ought to be free and that civil society has as its originating purpose the security of his freedom and of the fruits of his labor under law.”5 Lincoln’s views on slavery, however, were at odds with the predominant racist feelings of Illinois residents. Early Lincoln chronicler Francis Fisher Browne noted: “During the years of Lincoln’s service in the Legislature of Illinois, the Democratic party was strongly dominant throughout the State. The feeling on the subject of slavery was decidedly in sympathy with the South. A large percentage of the settlers in the southern and middle portions of Illinois were from the States in which slave labor was sustained, and although the determination not to permit the institution to obtain a foothold in the new commonwealth was general, the people were opposed to any action which should affect its condition where it was already established. During the session of 1836-’37, resolutions of an extreme pro-slavery character were carried through the Legislature by the Democratic party. The aim of the measure was to prevent the Abolitionists from obtaining a foothold in the State.”6 Mr. Lincoln and a Whig colleague from Sangamon County introduced a petition in the legislature condemning slavery. Lincoln legal scholar Paul Finkelman wrote: “This early foray into the constitutional issues of slavery suggests that Lincoln, even as a young man, understood the constitutional limitations as well as the constitutional possibilities of fighting slavery.”7 He also understood the reality of his isolation on the slavery issue. Lincoln scholar Saul Sigelschiffer observed: “There were few sections of Illinois where prejudice against the Negro was stronger than in Sangamon County, which had been settled chiefly by Kentuckians.”8

5 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best explains why the Stamp Act of 1765 was significant?
leonid [27]
The answer you're probably looking for is: The Stamp Act of 1765 was significant in the sense that it was the first direct tax imposed on American colonists (So, Option A would most likely be the answer that you're looking for to this question, that you have asked 

Good\\Luck\\ on\\ your \\ assignment!
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Where was portuguese trading focused in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries?
Vera_Pavlovna [14]
The high technology in the ships of the Portuguese gave them an advantage over other countries, becoming the most powerful navigators during those two centuries. Portuguese trading focused mainly on obtaining gold, ivory, and pepper; but in addition to these products, so prized in Europe, it is estimated that more than 175,000 slaves were also carried on Portuguese ships to Europe and the Americas in the greatest migration of people during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
8 0
3 years ago
In your opinion, was there any way for the colonies to make up with Great Britain? Could the Revolution have been avoided or was
ozzi
In my opinion there is no way for the colonies to make up with Great Britain noir was there any way to avoid the revolutionary war. If it had not been for the revolutionary war we would not have the independence that we do today. Although the British didn’t wrongfully tax us, they taxed us too much. Not only did they tax us during the stamp act of 1773 but they also taxed us during the coersive acts as well. Although the stamp act lowered the taxation from sixpence to three, technically it was more because we never had to pay taxes in the first place. The Coercive Acts pushed the colonists to rebel further. The acts restricted the colonists more than they were already. They were restricted from using the Boston Harbor until the city paid for the tea that they threw over the boat. Because the harbor was closed, there could be no trading. Having no trade hurt the Bostonians and their trade business. None of their imports could come in, and none of their exports could go out. So all in all the revolutionary war was inevitable and could not be avoided. (Hopefully that works u might wanna spiff it up a bit)
6 0
2 years ago
The drawing of New Orleans below was published in 1867
svet-max [94.6K]

Answer: the answer is B

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What happened at Seneca Falls during the Women’s Suffrage Movement? Question 14 options: a) A gathering in Seneca Falls to help
    9·2 answers
  • What change to landforms are caused by movements at transform boundaries
    15·2 answers
  • Exit
    9·1 answer
  • Which positions made up early Roman government? Check all that apply.
    7·2 answers
  • What was Prince Shotoku's most significant contribution to the Japanese government during his reign?
    8·2 answers
  • What did President Davis’s decisive response lead at the start of the war
    15·2 answers
  • Read the sentence from the section "The Italian Renaissance in context."
    14·1 answer
  • What iphone was made before steve jobs died?
    9·1 answer
  • How might HIV/AIDS hurt the countries that are most severely affected?
    13·1 answer
  • Please help me asap and u get brainliest!!!
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!