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.
For east asia, Japan can no longer be an aggressor of war. And there government made a new constitution. After world war 2 Japan was the fastest growing economy in the world. And japan had free capitalism.
An example of a time when citizen's right to free speech can be restricted is when their speech impedes national security. For example, Freedom of Speech was greatly restricted during wars (such as WWII), when national security depended on people keeping quiet to not leak information to foreign spies. This was expanded on by the usage of propoganda, and was usually enforced by Civil Officers. Freedom of Speech however generally is not restricted, even when it hurts another group, as seen in <em>National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie</em>, which, while the Justice sympathized with the people of Skokie, it ruled that freedom of speech cannot be denied to even hate groups.
~
