Compare and contrast Herbert Hoover’s strategy for ending the Great Depression with Franklin

1 answer:

6 0

Although both presidents used the federal government more than any previous president had to try to get the economy back to full strength, their approaches to ending the Great Depression were different.
Hoover's main goal was to restore confidence in the economy and the banking system. He authorized loans to farmers with the Agriculture Marketing Acting and businessmen wouldn't they wouldn't go bankrupt, they were expected o be paid back. For the most part, he advocated "rugged individualism". He believed government handouts to the poor and unemployed greatly damaged the self-esteem of the recipients. One major Hoover initiative, the Smoot- Hawley Tariff of 1930, proved to be disastrous for the US and world economies. And as the situation in the US deteriorated, the US constitution passed the Emergency Relief and the Reconstruction Act. Hoover disagreed with it and used his powers as president to slow its implementation. He pushed a different bill that he created, the Reconstruction Finance Act. He plan too little, too late. He lost favor with the American people.
There is significantly much more that Roosevelt did, I will narrow most down.
Roosevelt's mandate for change was so sweeping that he immediately went to work to restore the confidence in the US economic system. His program was called The New Deal. Roosevelt's overall strategy for combating the Depression was to provide relief to those who needed it most and to re-structure the US economy from the bottom up. The first thing the did was declare a "Bank Holiday". All banks in the US were closed indefinitely, until the banks and the government could control the situation. Theres so much more but Im sure you don't want a full blown essay.

You might be interested in

Why was Abraham Lincoln's house-divided speech significant?

GaryK [48]

Answer & Explanation:

In his “house divided” speech, Lincoln countered that the Dred Scott decision the previous year had already opened the doors for slavery to be legal in the north, as well as all territories that the U.S. expanded into. If the U.S. wanted to be a free country, he argued, it had to act now before it was too late.

Hope this helps, plz like and Brainly :D

5 0

3 years ago

(MC)Which statement describes one of the central trends in the transition from the First to the Second Industrial Revolution in

Rzqust [24]

<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, the correct response would be that the </span>transition from the First to the Second Industrial Revolution in the United States came about with a shift towards large-scale factory production as opposed to smaller scale industrial projects.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why do we make changes to the constitution?

sergey [27]

Answer:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

Congress passed the Southern Homestead Act in 1866. This act was meant to

dimaraw [331]

You’re answer will be C. Because they took the land for ex slaves after the American Civil War

5 0

3 years ago

Prior to the constitutional convention, what two models of intergovernmental relations predominated throughout the world?

N76 [4]

Governments typically had been either unitary or confederated. Or another way to say that is that they either focused on centralized power (in someone like a king) or particularized power -- the power in the parts of a kingdom rather than at the center.

So, for instance, in France (prior to its Revolution), all the power in the kingdom centered in the hands of the king. For 175 years, they didn't even have a meeting of the Estates General which was their version of a representative body. And the power of nobles on their lands was reduced while the king's power grew.

Meanwhile, in the German territories, there was a loose confederation called the Holy Roman Empire. One of the kings or princes held the title of "emperor," but he really had no imperial power. The confederated German states retained control over their own kingdoms or territories.

The American experiment mixed something of the best of both approaches. There would be strong central power in the federal government, but putting checks and balances on that power by retaining certain aspects of control in the hands of the states within the union.

3 0

3 years ago