As king of Spain Charles has received most criticism from historians for the financial management of his Spanish inheritance. To what extent is this criticism deserved? Finance was Charles greatest problem as the ruler of not just Spain but also the German states, much of Italy and Flanders, including its lucrative cloth market. In theory each state would provide enough money to serve its own interests and each country would not be excessively financing another. Charles, however, used money from any region that was willing to give it to him to finance any of his many wars.
How far do you agree that the New Deal was a success up to 1941? I do agree that the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was a success as it created jobs, saved banks from an upcoming crisis and restored confidence in millions of Americans, but I only agree that it was successful to a certain extent. Even though the New Deal has been praised for its ‘three R’s’ plan (Relief, Recovery and Reform) America was never able to get past the relief stage, although this never hindered plans and works of relief and recovery e.g. The Civilian Conservation Corps were initially a relief project which was supposed to give immediate help for jobless Americans. However, it lasted for eight years, until World War Two stopped the depression.
Jackson’s strong policies disturbed many people in his own party; they nicknamed him “King Andrew”. These debatable policies resulted in the loss of many supporters, although his actions were completely constitutional. To protect America, the exports of British goods to the U.S. were reduced, which resulted in the British buying less cotton. As a result, the south was forced to buy more expensive northern goods. The south felt that the north was getting richer at their expense.
However, it has often been said of Henry, 'No man has ascended to the throne with such a lack of financial experience and resources as Henry VII.' S. B. Chrimes. I think Henry was successful in increasing wealth of the crown, this is because Henry used ordinary revenue fairly well, for example the crown lands. These were this kings most important source of revenue. Henry VII had more crown lands than any previous king and some lands had been confiscated under the acts of attainder meaning more money for the crown.
The Tea Party Following the election of President Obama and the rapid growth of the nation's debt, a significant cross section of Americans were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with government spending. These people have formed a rather loose coalition and have taken the moniker “the Tea Party”. Increasingly frustrated with excessive spending, bail outs, and economic hardship, the tea party has accumulated significant support across the nation and has gained the support of a number of important Republican elected officials. As their influence grows, their momentum is gaining more power. The Tea Party is a group that apparently has no intentions of backing down on their goal: to reduce spending and balance the nation's budget.
Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor. Therefore, while both the main Yorkist Kings during this period did go some way to restoring royal authority in England, their successes were limited. Edward IV was successful at restoring royal authority as he was able to control the different regions of the Kingdom, such as the North and Wales, through the use of magnates. During his reign, Edward makes Richard, his brother, the duke of Gloucester, and puts Rivers in charge of Wales and his son. This meant that these areas, which were traditionally either pro-Lancastrian or prone to rebellion, were more controlled during Edward IV’s reign, which helped to restore royal authority.
Many people believe that the trickle-down theory is just an excuse to justify favoring the rich financially and the benefits keep going to those richer people. This may have begun with Reagan, mostly. But I think this problem did not just happen suddenly. This was something that started as a small justification for reasons the economy was looking horrible to the majority. But, it took years for us to create the mess America is now seeing with these theories in place.
Page 398, Para. 3. Another downfall of presidential power is that back in the day the president didn’t play a big role in the economy but now that the economy has transformed formed from a farming state to an industrial big wig, he now gets involved. What this could mean is that the government could get in their hands in a lot of companies, making them government ran. Like with all the bailouts you seen now, due to the financial crisis going on in America.
Her attempts to restructure the country seemed to be good in principle, however in reality seem to have caused more harm than good. There was too much emphasis on the world of finance and not the welfare of the whole population, the workforces of the nation suffered incredibly due to the new competitive nature of the private businesses. The unemployment of the 1980's has taken many years to correct, and the economic focus of her time in power, and lack of morality has left many with a very strong opinion about her and the decisions she
There were certain benefits to his approach, such as his “tax and spend” policies. The U.S. has been inclined to spend more money than it has taken in, which is indicative of the national debt at the beginning of the 21st century. The budget for the majority of the 21st century has a consistency of deficits and economic crisis. In 2008, the economy entered a bad recession resulting in high oil and food prices, and vast amounts of bankruptcies and foreclosures. The federal government attempted to fix the economic problems through costly economic stimulus packages, which only resulted in further national debt.