0 votes
by (140 points)

One of the many opportunities created by the administration is the President Obama's grant for single mothers. It's a very specific program aimed to assist moms struggling to make a living while taking care of their kids without any outside assistance. The grant is a welcomed prospect as this can significantly change the life not only for mothers but also for her kids. The struggle of single mothers is no secret to anyone. With a kid (or kids) relying on them for financial and parental help, they have to work hard but have to balance their time with their kids. This is not an easy feat as some mothers have to work 2 jobs and have to rush home to ensure their young ones are doing well. With single mom scholarships being offered, mothers can ask to be qualified for a college grant. 10,000 - a hefty amount that could help the student finish college and earn a degree. The government believes that this amount should help moms finish college, start a good career and raise their kids where financial and emotional support is not a problem. Federal grant for education is not a new program by the government. For decades, they have provided millions of dollars to deserving students who wanted to finish college and become valuable members of the society. While single mothers can qualify to the previous scholarship programs, it was only in this program that moms are given special attention which gives them a better chance to qualify. To gain this type of grant, standard application process has to be observed. Applicants can visit the official FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student AID) website. After providing the required information, a review will be conducted and the deserving candidate will be processed for their chosen scholarship program.

It's important to know how stable the national government is and how stable it's likely to be in future depending on prevailing political circumstances. Political instability makes it very difficult to do business. An abrupt change in a political regime may make businessmen lose their property and hard earned money. If you are operating business in such a country, the risk of losing business is high. How does your government relate with other governments? Does your home government maintain good relations with other foreign governments? For instance, for people who run online home businesses, there are countries where it's pretty difficult for one to set up an online payment system just because services provided by, say, PayPal or ClickBank are not available in those countries. This makes it difficult to sell your products or services online. A good political environment makes it possible to establish good relations with other foreign governments, which in turn creates directly or indirectly an attractive environment for new investors. The political environment in which you do business may be slow to facilitate opening or conducting businesses in the country. Long processes may be required for investors or entrepreneurs, whereby they are subjected to fill in so many forms that actually discourage some of the potential entrepreneurs.

The opening of an impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s conduct has sent Americans scrambling to divine meaning from the two previous impeachments in our history. In both cases — Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 — a House of the opposite party impeached the president, only to see the senate (www.cooplareggia.it) acquit largely along party lines. At present, many observers expect a similar result for Trump: impeachment by the Democratic majority in the House with acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate. With his party controlling the Senate, and Republican base voters still strongly supporting him, Trump appears to be insulated against removal from office. In fact, the Founders’ debates over impeachment offer another solution to handling Trump: voters, rather than the Congress, can choose to remove him from office next year. From the outset, there were no easy answers to the impeachment question. Some thought the whole thing unnecessary.

At the Constitutional Convention, the New York lawyer and merchant Gouverneur Morris initially argued that the executive should "not be impeachable" and instead suggested a "biennial election" every two years. Rufus King of New York concurred, arguing that the president would "periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors," namely through a regular election cycle. The majority of the delegates, however, disagreed with King and Morris, believing that elections alone were insufficient to check presidential misdeeds. They especially worried about the very real possibility of bribes from foreign governments, as had been the case throughout English history. Concerned about this possibility, Morris started to believe that the impeachment clause was a necessary evil. Even after the delegates agreed on having an impeachment procedure, they continued to debate how the process for removal would work. In September, as the convention waned, a draft called for the Senate to serve as the deliberative body. Undeterred, James Madison made a case for the Supreme Court assuming this role instead.

Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Welcome to Newpost Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.