more because they were the ones with the most money. PresidentHoover thought differently so he put all the responsibilities on the stategovernment which was the wrong thing to do because they couldn’t help asmuch as the federal government could. The people rarely benefited by anythingfrom them because there was not a lot to give. So the best thing to do was haveboth governments do their fair share of helping the people until they can getback on their feet again. I would have resolved it in this way because I feel it would have beenbetter for the people. I mean, a lot less lives would have been ruined if therewere more help. But yet I understand that money was scarce for basicallyeveryone, but the people that did have some, didn’t use it to help others. Butthen again its easier to talk about helping people with money problems when youare not in the situation nor if its your money being used. So basically things areeasier said than done, so I don’t know what I would have done or why I wouldhave done it. Well, it depends on your perspective of the whole ordeal that whether ornot it was a positive or negative thing. Some might say it was negative becauseof how about more than ninety percent of the population was forced into adevastating poverty that took them years to recover from and that onlysomething as drastic as a war could help get them out of it. Many lives were lost,many homes were lost, and many lives were changed forever. On the other had,in a little way it could be a positive thing because many people discovered arealization that people only think about when they are times of crisis. Forexample, there are things that people would take advantage of before the time ofthis depression and then when it came around, people had to live without thethings they once couldn’t manage without. Since in fact this had a negative effect on American history, there musthave been many ways it could have been avoided. For ex...
