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
natali 33 [55]
3 years ago
14

What was the effect of President Roosevelt's attempt to balance the federal budget?

History
1 answer:
nordsb [41]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

The effect of President Roosevelt's attempt to balance the federal budget was the economic recession of 1937.

Explanation:

In 1937, the government of the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt considered that, after 4 years of effort, the government should reduce its fiscal deficit and balance its accounts in order to avoid a progressive emptying of the public coffers. Roosevelt, who had won in the 1933 elections and had imposed the New Deal, greatly increasing public spending in line with Keynesian theory, decided it was time for the government to start pulling out of the economy. Thus, he decided to cut expenses (closing New Deal programs) and raise taxes, in order to balance the fiscal deficit.

The problem was that, as a consequence of the Great Depression and the correct application of the New Deal, the American economy was too weak not to have the support of the federal state. In other words, the American economy depended heavily on New Deal programs, and it had a degree of fiscal effort that was too great to raise taxes. Thus, with the taking of these measures, the American economy began to fall, entering in a recession.

You might be interested in
What would be an example of a time when you would want to use standard English?
Anit [1.1K]
In a letter to the editor of a newspaper since you should sound nice and polite
5 0
2 years ago
How and why did the Civil Rights Movement shift, change, and evolve over time?
julia-pushkina [17]

Answer:

Explanation:

Overview

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever enacted by Congress. It contained extensive measures to dismantle Jim Crow segregation and combat racial discrimination.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 removed barriers to black enfranchisement in the South, banning poll taxes, literacy tests, and other measures that effectively prevented African Americans from voting.

Segregationists attempted to prevent the implementation of federal civil rights legislation at the local level.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

After years of activist lobbying in favor of comprehensive civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted in June 1964. Though President John F. Kennedy had sent the civil rights bill to Congress in 1963, before the March on Washington, the bill had stalled in the Judiciary Committee due to the dilatory tactics of Southern segregationist senators such as James Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi. start superscript, 1, end superscript After the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, gave top priority to the passage of the bill.

4 0
3 years ago
How did Benito Mussolini came to power and how did he maintain power?
Masteriza [31]

Answer: I hope this helps

In 1922, Benito Mussolini (Il Duce) came to power as the prime minister of Italy and the leader of the National Fascist Party. ... He forcefully governed Italy until 1943 when the Allied invasion of the country led to his downfall and execution. His rise to power was remarkable.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
I NEED HELP FOR MY ESSAY!!
svet-max [94.6K]

Answer:

No because it killed many people

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What happened in Spain during the Renaissance?
    10·1 answer
  • When the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, it was __________.
    6·1 answer
  • Why is Tutankhamun’s tomb, the most complete pharaoh’s tomb discovered, such a significant discovery ?
    7·2 answers
  • What is unique about the Ethiopian churches that were constructed during Lalibela’s reign?
    9·1 answer
  • What practice or institution most differentiated Russia from the West?
    7·1 answer
  • What is the power of a state to determine its form of government and its economic and social system
    7·1 answer
  • Define what a colony is.
    14·1 answer
  • HELPPPP<br>In which four regions did the world’s first farmers live?
    5·1 answer
  • The most important food crop grown by Texas farmers was
    9·1 answer
  • HELP :(
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!