In 1969, President Richard Nixon unveiled the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), which called for a guaranteed minimum income for all families with children in place of the nation's largest welfare programme at the time, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Family Assistance Plan (FAP)
President Richard Nixon initially proposed welfare reform in 1969, and it would have guaranteed a basic income for low-income families. When libertarian economist Milton Friedman proposed enacting a negative income tax to create a safety net for the underprivileged while still rewarding labour in the middle of the 1960s, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income started to gain acceptance in conservative circles. On August 8, 1969, in a nationally televised speech, President Nixon unveiled the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), a radical plan that would eliminate the current welfare system. The average family of four is anticipated to receive $1,600 in monthly benefits under the FAP, which included an increase in federal welfare spending of almost $2.5 billion.
To learn more about the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) refer here:
brainly.com/question/23398848
#SPJ1
Answer:
A.) With the meetings of the Florentine Camerata
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
Citizens cannot make most economic decisions. Citizens can only work in factories or on farms. ... The government allows citizens to own private businesses.
