Critics say that pressure groups benefit the well organised but they disadvantage the weakly organised, subsequently working against the public interest. This is because the pressure groups run on donations for their funding. As a result, a pressure group with as little as two or three wealthy advocates may end up becoming influential and having its cause heard by the government. However, its members may not represent as much of the population as is suggested by the pressure group’s standing, thus creating inequality. This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow.
Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof. They thought that a government would do all these things but how could they be certain if they didn’t give it a chance? The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them; the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
Unlike Robber Barons they saw charities as a way of offering good will to the community that they were located in. They behaved in a way that showed to the best of their ability they would work to build a community instead of taking the resources and preparing to leave. Not all wealthy people were able to succeed with what they believed. Andrew Carnegie believed that wealth is divided in three ways which is, the descendants receive it; it’s used to public purposes; or it’s taken for taxes. It is unfortunate that in many cases to get the wealthy to help, there may be a need to increase the tax burden of the wealthy upon death so as to not have that burden placed solely on the middle class wage
1999) Although Singer has a great amount of followers, there are people who disagree with his beliefs and moral reasoning. One argument that an individual might have with him is that we should focus on helping the people in our own country. We have poverty stricken and starving people here in America as well. Nobody is helping us, so we must help our neighbors in this country. Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not.
The question that many of us have is how so many people got wrapped up in this alternate lifestyle. Bourgois and Schonberg state that governmentality is a major force that effects the dopefiends. I agree with Bourgois and Schonberg that governmentality effects the lives of this community, but I believe that our government cannot single handedly be driving masses of people, beyond the Edgewater community, into addictions and homelessness. Governmentality goes beyond the effects that the government has upon a group of people. Governmentality can also be about how a person and their self governance can effect them.
Rusbult and Martz used this theory to explain why victims of domestic abuse remain in relationships, as they may still be in profit from the relationship despite the ‘cost’ of abuse. This profit may be due to the high investment the person has placed in the relationship, such as children. However this theory has many weak points, one being that you can’t accurately assess costs and benefits within a relationship making it hard it attribute maintenance of relationships on a profit from the relationship. The theory can also be viewed as reductionist for it focuses solely on the costs and benefits of the relationship for the individual with relationships being much more complex than this. As well as omitting factors such as emotion from consideration, despite the basis of what we believe to be a ‘romantic relationship’ being based on feelings and emotion.
The reason for why governments in developing countries sometimes are unable or unwilling to implement polices that create favorable conditions for economic growth boils down to two main reasons: social issues and political issues. Political issues are just as multifaceted as the social issues. Due to corrupt governments and regimes the lawlessness spreads throughout the developing nation like wildfire. Political issues revolve around the basic needs of a nation such as simple, yet, necessary infrastructure of schools, hospitals, septic tanks, etc. The necessity of public goods is vital for a developing country to survive, maintain, and become what we consider today, a developed country.
The sad fact is that the United States system of funding presidential campaigns remains elitist and undemocratic. A public funding system that would make the process more equitable does exist, but is largely unused because it is badly underfunded. In the absence of public funds that would allow them to be competitive, political office seekers depend upon a relative handful of individuals whose large contributions make up the bulk of the money they raise. Special interests by spreading their wealth to all contestants are able to reduce the likelihood that they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In conclusion, there are various advantages and disadvantages presented on whether campaign financing will ultimatelly benefit.
We see that any opinion a person was highly dependent on their socio-economic place in the situation. Both the wealthy and the poor had an edge to their argument and why they disagreed with Roosevelt and his ideas. But when it comes down to it, Roosevelt did redeem the nation and that is not something that can be argued. Whether he hurt the poor or the wealthy, he provided the push the nation needed in order to recover from the economic
America has spent numerous amounts of money on strengthening our homeland security as well as border patrol, which have strengthened our defense but weakened our economy. Although some Americans feel much safer within our borders today, there are still many more that still have fear of those terrorists, but with all the new laws stemming from 9/11 people generally feel much safer in America than ever before. In conclusion, 9/11 has had many a huge impact in America in many ways both positive and negative. A positive impact of 9/11 is that Americans came together as one and showed they were there for one another when times got hard. A negative impact that 9/11 has had is the effect it has had on the economy and also with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.