Humbert and Lo in ’32. (Photo from Photoquest/Getty Images)
Last week at the Gymnasium across the country, the highest test of advanced placement of the year took place. More students take the history of the United States than any other AP test. It is just a sign of national pride that so many of our young people are struggling for this test that takes them to the important details of our great past.
I have come to praise the “Apush” test, not to bury it, and I pay attention to the central inquiry Last week:
“Evaluate the degree to which the role of the federal government in the United States economy changed from 1932 to 1980.”
Good question. The only issue I put is, what will happen if we shifted the dates a little bit, say from 1920 to 1964? What if the question was:
“Evaluate the degree to which the role of the federal government in the United States economy changed from 1920 to 1964.”
All this will do is to shift the first date back twelve years and the last sixteen. The period in both cases would be forty in the middle of the century. I argue that the answers to the questions, due to the displacement, could be radically different.
When we see a 1932 start date, we believe that automatically by a President Herbert Hoover does nothing effective to capture the constantly worsing spiral of the Great Depression. Although I wonder if we ever consider Hoover’s request to increase the top income tax rate by 150 % from January 1F that year. He got his desire and since all jobs come from the investment decisions of the top employees, why is this exactly unknown in our abundant memory of the Great Depression?
Anyway, in 1932-1980 it gives a huge opportunity to talk about the FDR, whoever it was. And lbj. (Btw: My Stenching for Lyndon Baines Johnson is LeBron James and that Humbert Humbert is for Herbert Hoover.) FDR and Lebron significantly increased the role of government in the economy and worked until the crisis of Keynesianism in the 1970s. Five), given the relevant detail.
But what if the dates were 1920-64? Now we have a pretty different narrative. Here it goes:
“Since it never had income tax of any size until 1917, the top rate of this tax was 73 % from 1919-21, as the country suffered both depression and raising prices from 1913 from 120 %. 20s.
“Hoover, which became president in 1929, called for a top-not-tax reduction in the tax rate and decided that the invoices and income tax rates at the top had to increase, as for the latter, took 150 % over 1929-32, from 25 to 63 %.
“The FDR adopted and reinforced Hoover’s tax policy, rapidly increasing the top interest rate to 79 % and beyond, as unemployment was very normal.
“Finally in 1948, Congress, having reduced federal spending from three quarters in three years, reduced the tax rates radically, against Truman’s third veto. The economy responded with post -war prosperity.
“IKE liked the top tax rate at 91 % and we got three recession in a short succession in the 1950s.
“JFK said the tax rates, especially at the top, and the biggest of the arms shone. He said.
“And then he collapsed. LeBron said he spends domestic and foreign like crazy and excludes tax cuts through surcharge and goes from the gold standard.” Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie “became the new anthem, reflecting the conditions”.
If we start in a period under the period we overthrow with cuts from top tax interest rates and ending in a brilliant period with top tax interest rates cuts (1920-64), we take a different story from the 1932 Governmental Investment, the 1932 Boilerplate. The dirty secret of American economic history in 20th The century is that all the growth came when we got serious about cutting the top income tax rates.
Apush, a large examination, is so cautious in this reality as academic fashion allows. What would you say to be a real, academic way?
