Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt were both apparent victims of being the wrong president at the wrong time. Their attempts to end the depression, although Hoover's a appeared more futile, were noble efforts on their behalf's considering the circumstances that they were enduring at the time. In many ways, both of these Presidents could not have don't much more to attempt to pull the country out of the Great Depression. Hoover was plagued with a rigid personality and a Democrat Congress that knew there was no better way of placing a Democrat in the White House than make the depression appear to be a Republican doing. FDR on the hand came in when American where willing to try just about anything to pull themselves up.
One train of thought suggests that our government should have limited terms to inject new blood into the government. The other train of thought suggests that experienced politicians know how to move political processes forward and limiting their time in office limits this ability. Our government was established by free thinkers that wanted to break away from the tyrannical structure of England. To ensure that our nation does not fall into the same structure, limitations were placed on government positions but not on the overall length of time an official can hold an office overall other than our presidency. This was established to ensure that our representatives could be renewed as often as needed to reflect the public’s beliefs.
Hence, win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not supreme excellence; the supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. In the business applications, it is better to merge competitor’s company than to destroy it. You will get more human resource and fund to do other business. Sun Tzu said: 1. The highest form of generalship is to balk and attack the enemy's strategy; 2.
He also wanted to deregulate state and federal government requirements and liberate business and allow capitalism to flourish making people more prosperous and enabling them to pay more taxes, decreasing federal deficit. He also wanted to strengthen the nation’s defences. It can be argues that reaganomics was not successful in the years 1981 – 89 but it depends on who you ask, the democrats would say it didn’t work where republicans would say it did work. After the Great Depression the consensus was that the government’s main target should be to maintain a low level of unemployment. But the reaganites said that the low unemployment obsession had pushed up public expenditure and led to budget deficits and stagflation and they believed in supply side economics which emphasised growth.
As well as this, an end to prohibition would eliminate the costs required to enforce it – an extra expenditure the government could not afford at this time. Economically, an end to prohibition would help strengthen the unstable situation in America: ending unproductive government spending as well as bringing new money into the system. Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment would also meet social demands brought about by the crisis. Those facing hard times wanted to drink, and wanted an end to the law to allow them to do so more easily; thus the Great Depression added to the support for social groups already campaigning for its repeal. Both the economic and social effects of the Depression make it an important reason for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, a concept supported by historian Joseph Gusfeld.
This view is ultimately a right wing argument; this is because that the right want a small government which would be ensured by strong checks and balance which promoted gridlock which is against the idea of certain branches being overextended as overextended powers lead to less gridlock which leads to larger government making this issue a right wing one. It can be seen that the powers of the executive have increased far past the intended levels in particular the president’s power can be seen to be increased for example the president has far too much power in terms of foreign policy i.e. the president is allowed to go to war without consulting congress if he/she doesn’t officially declare war, he/she can also negotiate with other foreign entities without the consultation of congress so the president essentially has as much power as they wish in
I could blame the defeat which would have been the result of my action on him and come out as Peacemaker…But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.” However, this idealistic standpoint was mere propaganda. In private, President Nixon would favour a more militant and aggressive approach. This contradictory position not only exposed Nixon’s vulnerability to public opinion, but also his disillusion and misunderstanding of the complexities of such a war. It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War.
It is also necessary to allow foreign products to come in so competition will increase. Basic ally, the underlying flaw under foreign product taxes is that it cuts off greater innovations and negatively affects our economy. -Even if we wanted to improve, remove taxes b/c by imposing taxes we don’t accept new ideas into our companies and nothing is innovative anymore. We are promoting isolationism -By allowing foreign products to come in, competition is brought about and we work to improve upon it. Each side improves the product and it continues in a circle.
There are three main points that I would like to elaborate on. The first being, that incentivising dictators exacerbates the threat that dictators pose throughout the world. History suggests that encouraging current dictators to leave office by making retirement more attractive will also encourage future dictators to seize power, by lowering the risk that they will face prosecution. Given that 60 countries, representing nearly a third of the world’s population, are only partly free and therefore at risk of moving further into totalitarianism, this should be a grave concern. There is also the possibility that lenient treatment may allow dictators to regroup and mount a comeback, like Joaquin Balaguer in the Dominican Republic.
This way, the Government would not have to pay out compensation to the strikers. This was probably the most important factor in causing the hyperinflation crisis. There were two options open to Weimar after the war, to curtail spending and increase taxes, or to go the route that they took, which led to the inflation. It is possible that the Weimar Government preferred the inflation route as it appeared to confirm what they had been saying to the Allies – that there economy was unstable, and therefore they were unable to pay the reparations. With the benefit of hindsight, this seems even more likely as when Stresemann came into power, he managed to sort out the hyperinflation problem extremely quickly and therefore, the Weimar Government could have done the same.