If the U.S government and the EU form a one-world government would it really be that bad?
The more power is centralized the more power central government has. The only thing that keeps any liberty with the people is that they have power, when they lose that power, they are live stock. Trust me, that's what the most powerful wealthy people in the world have in mind. Are you ready to be live stock? The people who would take over because they own politics basically, don't give a damn about you, they would use you to make their lives better, which means more control, they already have about all money can buy. slpknthe... Communism doesn't exist, it's never been implemented. It's been used as bait to gain power from the masses and then Totalitarian Oligarchy has been implemented, as in Russia & their Revolution where the ones who pushed and financed it murdered those who did it and kept all the power and imposed total control and inhumane enforcement where suspicion was enough to end your existence. The result of Communist Revolutions is maybe what you're talking about? Make central power available and the people with the money and the desire will take it, and they won't care about you. The ultimate in power is to have most of the people enslaved to you ... that's the goal, and those with lesser goals will lose because they won't go as far. It's the natural progression of power being given up by people, it will end up in the hands of a few.
A good source for this information is the collection of National Income and Product Accounts compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The interactive query tool can be found here: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). What you are looking for is Government Receipts and Expenditures. The figures are revised periodically, and the last revision occurred on June 24th, 2015. (The rationale behind the revisions can be found on the site.) In 2014, total expenditures were approximately $3.9 T, while total receipts were about $3.3 T for the federal government. The corresponding combined totals for state and local government were $2.5 T (expenditures) and $2.3 T (revenues). These figures are in nominal terms (see Real versus nominal value (economics)).Check out this data source. It provides historical time series so you can see how the expenditures and receipts have evolved over time. Of course, if you do look at the time series, you will need to adjust for inflation. (See a discussion of CPI vs PCE deflators here: Page on bls.gov) You can also normalize the measure by dividing expenditures and receipts by GDP. In general, the level of fiscal activity means very little without a sense of national income. (For example, the decision calculus related to the purchase of a $500 air conditioning unit is quite a bit different for a household with $10,000 of annual income versus a house with $100,000.)UPDATE: Sorry for the ambiguity. The edit makes clear that $2.5 T is the combined expenditure total for all state and local (a.k.a. subnational) governments, and $2.3 T is the combined receipt total for subnational governments.
U.S. Government True and False?
I'm studying the practice test for one of the scholarships I'm applying for, and have been having a tough time finding the answers to these True/False statements. 11.) The Supreme Court has included no fewer than 2 women at any one time since Ruth Bader Ginsburg's appointment in 1993. 12.) John Paul Steven's retirement left no Protestant Justices remaining on the Supreme Court. 13.) The U.S. Secretary of Transportation is Ray LaHood. 14.) Rahm Emanuel was a U.S. Senator prior to serving as White House Chief of Staff. 15.) Chief Justice John Roberts was once a Supreme Court clerk working for William Rehnquist. 16.) In 2009 Arlen Specter became the first U.S. Senator in 20 years to switch his allegiance from one major political party to the other. 19.) John McCain was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980. 20.) George W. Bush vetoed just 12 bills submitted to him by Congress during his presidency. And I have one multiple choice I'm having trouble with: Which of the following presidents also served as a member of another president's Cabinet? A.) Harry S. Truman B.) Herbert Hoover C.) Franklin Roosevelt D.) None of the above
What is 1 pro and 1 con of government involvement in the U.S. economy?
If you are an American, then you should know by now that the U.S. government is made up of the ones chosen by the American people to best represent our needs and interests at local, state, and federal levels. We have a centralized banking system, which provides structure and discipline (accountability) as well as consumer protections and a system of checks and balances for all local, state, and federal systems that benefits us all. The overdone simplicity of your question does not allow for a more detailed response. "Economy" for a nation in a global marketing system is very complex and incredibly nuanced, so you might want to take a few courses in micro- (President Obama's mom's interest) and macro- (President Obama's dad's interest) economics.
True and False Questions. (U.S. Government)?
1) The major political parties tend to be a moderating force in American politics. 2) The power of the two main parties has always been balanced. 3) The party platform is a formal statement of the party's position on current issues. 4) Typically, candidates attempt to draw voters by taking extreme positions on the issues. 5) The Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party. 6) A splinter party is based on a single key issue. 7) Even though relatively few people have voted for third-party candidates, the parties have had an effect on the American political system. 8) Originally, no one ran for vice president; rather, the presidential candidate that came in second became vice president. 9) To Democratic Party once reffered to itself as "Republican." 10) Campaigns today are less expensive and shorter than campaigns in the past because methods of transportation and communication are so much better. You can answer the ones you can.
There were 3 branches of government created by the Constitution. In order of authority and importance they are the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive.The legislature, Congress, is elected by the People (and per the Constitution, the States, prior to the 17th Amendment). The legislature within the constraints of the Constitution, writes laws and sets policy. If members of the other two branches do not perform as expected, or extra-constitutionally, they may impeach, try (or not), and convict (or not) members of the other two branches. Conviction could lead to penalties of severance, up to imprisonment, and everything in between.The judiciary, Courts - Judges are appointed by the executive branch with the advice and consent of the legislature. Though the executive appoints, the legislature must confirm, and has the final say in the appointment of judges. Judges try cases where the law has been broken. The judge does does not determine guilt or innocence. That is done by a jury of citizens. The jury may find one of two verdicts; guilty, or not guilty. Judges then set the penalty within parameters prescribed by the law. If the judge feels the law is unconstitutional, or the defense files a motion, the judge may render a verdict of acquittal. In any event, that verdict may be appealed to higher courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, where, the verdict and ultimately, even the law may be judged, and either upheld or struck down. The judiciary also hears civil disputes, which are judged within the confines of the law, and the Constitution.The executive- This includes the President, and Department Secretaries and Agency heads appointed with the advice and consent of the legislature, as well as the entire “civil service” and the military. The President is elected by the States (the Electoral College), with the advice and consent of the People. The executive branches sole authority is to enforce and prosecute the laws of the legislature, and execute policy pursuant to the will of the legislature.
Why does the U.S. government believe acts of war are an acceptible means to global peace?
Peace has nothing to do with it. There is a difference between creating peace and creating order. Peace is usually a willing put down of violence between 2 or more parties. Order is compliance with someone elses will. On the back of US 1 dollar bill it says in latin, "Annuit Coeptis, Novo Odo Seclorum" which roughly translated means "Our enterprise is crowned with succes, The new secular order." On september 11th 1990 I believe it was Geroge Bush Sr announced the new world order on national television. Some years later on September 11th we lose our twin towers. Coincidence? George Bush Sr and George W Bush are PROVEN, not speculated freemasons. On the top of certain freemason certificate is the same all seeing eye as on the back of the US one dollar bill except on the freemason certificate is the words, "Odo Ab Cao" Order out of chaos. What better way to get people to do what you want than to create a chaotic situation, than you come in with the answer and solution to the problem you create. Now you're the good guy, the answer man, right, now when there's a problem people come to you because you have proven yourself in their eyes to be competent so now they trust you so you can abuse that trust in acheiving your personal agenda. Take a look at how the US has handled this entire situation and how the president is admitting mistakes and yet he continues to push his agenda...is it more probable that the leader of our nation is just that stupid to admit he's wrong and just keep doing it or is it more likely that this has nothing to do with any excuse he has given to be there and is all about his own personal agenda? Do you think that at this point even if Bush was telling the truth he is so stupid to believe that every effort thus far has failed so if he continues to do the same thing by sending more troops he'll succeed? That's insane unless he's just trying to buy more time for some alternate purpose...but you decide for yourself