1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lisa [10]
3 years ago
15

How did Hoover's and Roosevelt's approaches to handling the Great Depression differ? A. They both held the same views. B. FDR be

lieved that social services should be handled by private charities; Hoover didn't. C. FDR believed that federal government should take an active role in the economy; Hoover didn't. D. Hoover believed that federal government should take an active role in the economy; FDR didn't.
History
2 answers:
Shalnov [3]3 years ago
5 0
Hoover believed that you should not help people during a hard times. FDR was the complete opposite he wanted to help the american people get out of the great depression. So your answer is C.
Andreas93 [3]3 years ago
4 0

FDR believed that federal government should take an active role in the economy; Hoover didn't.

Explanation:

Herbert Hoover According to him, the Great Depression was a temporary phase and the market would set itself right without management interference. Franklin D. Roosevelt.He believed that the government should take steps to improve the lives of the common people. He was able to spend public money on getting people back to work while both presidents felt that federal intervention was expected, Roosevelt's approach was more generous then Hoovers. Hoovers thought that too much federal preoccupation would eventually lead the country into government. Whereas Roosevelt assumed that government intervention was the only way to help.

You might be interested in
With the Compromise of 1850, the South gained
Ray Of Light [21]
Stronger fugitive slave law this is the answer 
8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What are some potential benefits and potential costs of total war, and do the potential benefits ever outweigh the costs ?
dimaraw [331]

The concept of "total war" refers to a type of armed conflict that is bound by no rules or limitations in terms of who is being attacked, the weapons that are used or the elements of society that will be sacrificed to win it.

Engaging in this type of war can have some benefits, such as:

  • There is no need for the government to define its objectives clearly.
  • Because of it, there is no accountability between the government and its citizens, which gives them free reign of action.
  • Countries with a strong military can use their full power.

However, the costs far outweigh the benefits:

  • Increased cost of human lives, from all parties involved.
  • The destruction of all civil society.
  • Because civil society is so disrupted, government institutions are likely to collapse as well.
  • Extremely difficult recovery process, both politically as economically.
  • Complete depletion of the country's resources.
  • Violation of human rights and the laws of just war.
  • Closes the door to any peaceful solution.

There is rarely, if ever, a situation in which a total war provides benefits that would outweigh the costs of it, or that would not be achieved through some other means.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What kinds of terrorist threats do us citizens face today?
nadya68 [22]
Spontaneous attacks on the public. Threats to obey or get shot. Threats on our common lifestyle, or feeling of safety. 

hope this helps?
good luck!!
5 0
3 years ago
What does Emma Goldman’s account of the Homestead strike emphasize about the experience of workers during this time period?
Keith_Richards [23]

Answer:

C) It was dangerous for workers to go on strike because companies were willing to use force to break up a strike.

Explanation:

The Homestead strike was an open and violent confrontation between the union workers of the Homestead steel mill and the administration of that mill. This event would become one that resonates with workers union revolts and the fight for workers' rights.

Emma Goldman, in her autobiography "Living My Life" reveals how she and Sasha a.k.a Alexander Berkman participated in the demand of the workers' rights. And through her account of the event, we can know that going on strike was a dangerous thing for workers because companies use force to dissolve the strike, even if it leads to extreme steps.

Thus, the correct answer is option C.

5 0
3 years ago
How did the people live in ancient Egypt ??
Lisa [10]
They worshipped over 2,000 deities and lived off crops. They lived near the Nile and hold filled with minerals.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why does Jane Addams say that it is necessary for women to get the ballot
    10·1 answer
  • What two events shattered Europe during the 1300s? the Great Earthquake of 1332 the Great Famine of 1315 the Plague the Crusades
    11·1 answer
  • Which Mexico City landmark features murals by Diego Rivera and a distinctive orange and yellow dome?
    6·1 answer
  • Leading up to the civil war, many enslaved african americans made the decision to escape their captors and flee to the north in
    9·1 answer
  • A monarchy is an example oh which of the 3 major types of government
    14·1 answer
  • What was one cause of colonial unhappiness with British rule in 1776?
    9·2 answers
  • What was provided by the 12 tablets of law
    8·1 answer
  • How many judges are there on state supreme courts?
    13·2 answers
  • What was the Jewish population in Europe in 1933 and 1950?
    6·1 answer
  • *PLEASE ANSWER!!!*
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!