While not believing in charity by the government, Hoover did try and help the economic mess that began during his administration. He gave much of his money to charity and encouraged Americans to do the same. Hoover believed in a balanced budget and not pumping government money into the economy. He believed in "rugged individualism" and relied on the individual, the churches and private charities, and the local and state governments to handle most of the economic help that was needed.
Yes, John C. Calhoun opposed certain internal improvements, particularly those funded by the federal government. He believed that such projects could lead to an overreach of federal power and infringe upon states' rights. Instead, he advocated for state responsibility in funding and managing internal improvements, emphasizing the importance of limited federal involvement in local affairs. His stance reflected his broader ideological commitment to states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
For one, they both hated each other, so that complicated things. But also, Jefferson was an anti-federalist, he believed that the powers of the federal government were limited to what explicitly stated in the constitution, and the Bank, which would give the federal government significant power over the economy, was a big no-no.
Elias Boudinot argued that the federal government should oppose Indian removal because it undermined the rights and sovereignty of Native American nations. He believed that removal was unjust and counterproductive, as it disregarded the cultural and historical ties of Native Americans to their ancestral lands. Boudinot advocated for coexistence and respect for Native American autonomy, emphasizing that their presence and contributions to society should be acknowledged rather than forcibly erased.
yes, they oppose all forms if government.
because oh gods pickle
he believed that only state and city governments should dispense relief
cause
osweg
he believed in "rugged individualism" where if the government helps the people they will become to reliant on them and will get them into an even deeper debt. He believed that if he leaves it alone that the economy will eventually fix itself.
Harding and Coolidge espoused this idea. Hoover did not oppose it much.
Jefferson and Madison believed that the constitution discouraged the concentration of the power in the federal government.
These are controversial because of the way they are distributed. They are not always given to the person who is most in need of them.
While not believing in charity by the government, Hoover did try and help the economic mess that began during his administration. He gave much of his money to charity and encouraged Americans to do the same. Hoover believed in a balanced budget and not pumping government money into the economy. He believed in "rugged individualism" and relied on the individual, the churches and private charities, and the local and state governments to handle most of the economic help that was needed.
Hoover believed that the federal aid to the poor would make people depend to much on the government. so as a result he did not want to give federal relief to needy. Bail outs are likely to lead to the principle that the outcome of the economic well being of a country or the world for that matter in the long run depends on the good faith and willingness of the public (tax payer if you will) to pay with their own productivity to keep businesses in business that should go out of business. This would be admitting that the product of the world is in fact the property of the producers and not that of the company's that take risks on behalf of investors. The Capitalist principle sees that capital controls ownership and thus responsibility for the outcome. However with bailouts it seems that the only capital big enough to keep the so called capitalists from going broke and pulling every one else down with them is that which belongs to the citizens that make up the actual power to produce.
Supprt. The company has petitioned the federal courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and thereby permit federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States.
Supprt. The company has petitioned the federal courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and thereby permit federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States.