The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Riccardo93 said:

I agree wholeheartedly with my opponent on the matters of a Chicago commemoration, and even more so on the reduction of our army. However, more than that, we must transition our nation from this military-industrial complex we have created, and into a system more oriented towards industry and commerce, to further spur our economic growth, and promote worldwide trade and commercial relations.

Most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, we must sever the ties that forced us into this war, and needlessly slaughtered tens of thousands of our kinsmen; our binding alliance with France, this foolish Commonwealth, and the presidency of Mr. Terrance, for without him, America may have been able to avert this conflict! Do we want the man who led our sons into slaughter to continue on his course of statism and militarism? Or do we want to change our course, to freedom and peace? America must choose now, for we have all seen the results of the former course; poverty, suffering, death, and worst of all, the surrender of our social and economic freedoms! The latter course, however, has been proven, by the likes of Jefferson, Washington, and Mandrake; and what did we see? Growth, prosperity, an expanding middle class, and a peaceful environment to facilitate more growth!

A vote for Jarvis, or for Carlsson, or for Taggarman, will see us make a return to NORMALCY, to PEACE, to PROSPERITY, while a vote for Terrance will see more of the same!

Click to expand...

You say you want to disassemble the military-industrial complex, and yet you voted against the Transition to Peace Act which sought to do just that. You say you're for stopping the deaths of our young men and yet you seek to revoke our system of healthcare, safety standards and the welfare net that saves so many lives in peacetime. You say my administration brings poverty, yet it has brought relief for millions in poverty who need it most. You say we'd have been able to avert this conflict, but at what cost? Yes the war has been a great tragedy and yes it cost many lives, but the alternative would have brought much greater suffering. We as a nation have been forced into the position where we had to choose between a generation suffering the blight of total war to ensure future peace and international co-operation, achieved through a fair treaty and the establishment of a League of Nations, or a bleak, dark and protracted future of misery and totalitarianism. The war is now over, and I shall bring peace, prosperity and maintain the benefits of the welfare state that I, and other great figures of American history; Harrison, Vallejo, Cameron, created. I promised our soldiers that they would have a greater country to return home to, one where they needn't fear sickness, unemployment, homelessness, illiteracy for their children, or other squalors, and I have, and shall in future deliver.

I seek to revoke the system of slavery that is being legislated upon the America people! I would love to see all people have access to healthcare; however, the State not only is a poor choice for providing it (due to corruption, bureaucracy, and anti-competitive practices that inevitably get placed on the market), but problems arise in the legality of ethicality of such a system; should government be the provider? Should government force the market to it's will when an otherwise free market could very well provide as much, or more, of a product to the people? As well, if a state wants a healthcare system in place, then they are more than welcome to create one; unless you are opposed to local control, and favour central planning from Washington.

On the issue of safety standards, I have never once stated my opposition to such laws; indeed, my family has been prominent supporters of laws to ensure that all workers are kept safe. And while I feel some laws may be too much, or too vague, or to binding, I would likely keep the safety laws we have already in place, and instead work to streamline and enforce those laws more effectively.

Furthermore, I opposed the TPA for other reasons, which I feared would expand governmental power, something I am completely loathe to.

If you recall, Cameron allowed slavery to continue existing, supporting the removal of a champion of abolition and free markets! Harrison took power and held onto it ferociously, only giving enough to ensure his more controversial bills were passed.

You are making far to many promises that cannot possibly be kept; we do not need to fear unemployment, for the State will employ you!; we do not need to fear illiteracy, for the State will educate you!; we do not need to fear homelessness, for the State will house you!; we do not need to fear hunger, for the State will feed you!; we do not need to fear this or that, because the ALMIGHTY STATE will ensure it for you! And how will they provide it, you may ask? With your money, with your land, and with your labour! You see, you will work for the State, not for your family or for yourself, but for the President, the great father of this nation, the great decider or organizer, who will create a great utopia for you! You may not own anything, and you may not have freedom, but you will be provided for!

What you are offering are, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, slave's rations; hay and a barn for human cattle! These men do not own the fruits of their own labour; the wealthy pay exorbitant taxes to feed, clothe, and house the poor, whilst the government seizes control of their businesses, for the 'war effort.'

There is no difference between that what describe my ideology of supporting and your laissez-faire idealism, except for one important thing:

Rather than it being the state whom takes money from the common man it's the rich, the Rockefellers, the Orleans, and the other monopolists once vanquished by Harrison. And rather than using that money to as you put it to; employ you; educate you; house you; feed you. All of which are good and noble would you not dispute? They will quite contently fill their pockets and leave you to the rats if you serve no purpose to them.

Besides the fact that you have my system wrong in that welfare is provided as part of a free market with free trade......that is the difference between the world-view of you and I, Mr Jarvis.

Indeed those are noble pursuits, but with other people's money? I have a bit a problem with that. While some businessmen are indeed horrible, and I have never disputed that (nor do I behold myself to them); however, a government able to give you everything, it can just as easily take it all away, something no business entity, when forced to compete in the light of a free market, can possibly do.

You see you mistake capitalism as being the ideology of the wealthy elite; it is in such way; businessmen hate capitalism, and would much rather have an anti-competitive system, like the one you and others have advocated, as the system that America follows. Capitalism is the spirit of entrepeneurialism, of the individual, of the middle class. The poor support socialism in an effort to raise themselves up, and the rich support mercantalism to keep everyone else beneath them, but only under capitalism, pure and unrestricted, can a poor man die a rich man, if he puts a little effort, and a little creativity, into his works.

However, I understand, and feel for, the plight of the poor and downtrodden. My solution is not so grand sounding, nor is it so far reaching. However, neither is it so intrusive to individual liberty, and counter to the ideals that founded this nation. My solution is to create a truly free market, something that has never been attempted. Antipoverty measures are acceptable, so long as we don't needlessly tax any particular group, or all people. And my proposal of tax grants to small businesses will further promote growth in ways that your governmental system cannot possibly hope to compete with, because that is where the State inevitably fails; competition. The only advantage the State has is it's near unlimited amount of currency, which you have guaranteed with this Federal Reserve System, which not only grants you, and the Chairman of the Reserve, near unlimited power to create fiat currency, but also to manipulate the system to destroy any vestiges of capitalism that should stand in your way. And once that is done, what will remain? Government-run or financed enterprises, National Corporatism, rampant inflation, and a poorer nation.

What is ultimately the point of the state using the people's money to do what could ultimately be accomplished by the free market anyways? If the people spend their money in a way they see fit, rather than seeing it taxed away and spent in whatever way Washington believes is "best" for the people, then ultimately they will get their services and it will ultimately be much more efficient for them. For how is the man in Washington supposed to know what the man in Norco, California wants? How is the man in Washington supposed to know what the woman in Tallahassee, Florida needs? How is the man in Washington supposed to know what is best for the child in Rochester, New York?

A one-size-fits-all policy is not what this country needs, nor what any country needs, for ultimately it is an effort in futility, bogging down the state with redundant, ineffecient bureaucracies that accomplish little, if anything at all.

All this division over the course of our nation's economics and welfare system is a circus sideshow that seems to occur every election. Debate is the sign of a healthy republic but bitter ideology will make it impossible to make progress. The key to making democracy work is to compromise and not come into office wishing to dogmatically see your ideology triumph over another. We must give and take; determine the needs of the people and work for the betterment of the nation. Ideologies come and go, friends. America perseveres.

My grandfather, a great American, strongly believed that the role of the government is to serve as a "great enabler." Not to feed, shelter, and clothe the people from cradle to grave, and not to leave them penniless and ignorant. Provide them with a means to succeed - they can do the rest. Business is one of the prime movers and helps this country stay strong. Ensure a fair set of rules and let them play ball. And lastly, casting off our entangling alliances. Let Liberty, Freedom and Democracy be our allies, for they are powerful. The fostering of Democracy must be our Great Crusade, for a more peaceful and prosperous world. We must identify issues, like these, that we can unite behind, rather than concentrating on the issues that only serve to divide and distress our great nation.

In service,

Walter Mandrake
Candidate for Senator of the Great State of Indiana

I would agree with Mr Mandrake's sentiment; however, I must add that it must act as a "safety net" too, to protect from exploitation and true poverty. This, I feel, will contribute just as much to helping the poor, at minimal expense, as an efficient education system. By helping the poor, we not only prevent them from being disillusioned with the system, and therefore militant, but we give them the potential to succeed, in terms of time and energy, whilst not taking away the incentive of the rewards of labour. On top of this, I feel the state must also support those who cannot work, such as the disabled or the elderly, and we must allow the unions room to speak out on behalf of their members, not fearing the consequences of strikes. In that way, we maintain the balance in the system Mr Mandrake is advocating, yet we do not abandon the needs of a large number of our citizens.

But what you fail to note, Mr. McCahill, is where government will acquire the funds for such programmes. Those funds can only be procured by five different means; the first, and the method followed by this president, is an increase of taxation. However, to fully fund these programmes, and maintain our military will require universal increases for all classes, or such a devastating increase on the wealthy and middle class that no private enterprise could effectively be conducted (perhaps that is the goal of the socialists). The second would be the method that the president is attempting to put in place; a system of printing money as needed. This however creates an incredibly dangerous situation of inflation and lack of monetary control, especially if the Federal Reserve Chairman become increasingly independent. The third is a method no-one wants; borrowing from other nations, which almost instantly brings our impartiality and independence into question, as well as greatly diminishing our influence. The fourth is a system of charity, which, while highly advantageous in terms of protecting liberty, would likely bring in little revenue. The fifth, and another likely source of future income under Terrance, would be a moderate to highly restrictive tariff system; however, that harms the consumer immensely and is highly anti-competitive, and does nothing but protect mediocrity in local industry.

The system I propose would greatly reduce federal spending; as such the tariff system would be abolished, and taxes would be reduced to prewar levels (as stated previously, a 5% flat tax would be the optimal level, though a slightly higher one is tolerable).

Also Mr. McCahill, I have not made any statements on either the unions, of which I feel have a right to exist, to protect workers from corrupt or unsafe business practices, and on support for disabled persons, which I feel need a little assistance from the federal government, at least for a short while, before the states or private enterprises are in place to aid them.

I have one final statement to make, to all those who misunderstand capitalism; just because I don't want the Federal government to provide a service, does not mean I don't the service at all; nor does it mean that once the government stops providing it, it will simply disappear. As long as there is a market for a good or service, there will be businesses that cater to it, enterprises far more effective than the State. My question to the socialists, to the progressives, and to those who believe that the State is answer to our problems is this; do you believe that businesses, whom you fear are corrupt and bribing the government, should be regulated by that very same government?

Senator Johnson is returning to private law practice and not running for re-election.

New Character

Patrick Ryan

Born 1889 in Brooklyn, New York to Irish immigrant parents.

Patrick Patrick worked in a factory producing cement until the Great War. He was drafted into the US Army and served in Europe until he was wounded. He now resides in New York advocating for the rights of veterans and labour. He feels the veterans and their families paid a great price for this military victory and deserve some of the spoils. He supports a generous pension and disability system and the right to employment at a reasonable wage for all able bodied men. He is no expert in geopolitics or foreign affairs but does want to see the Tripartite powers punished. He also feels the US should use its new power and influence to push the UK into giving Ireland independence and has submitted the following bill

Irish Independence Act

In recognition of the US sacrifices in this war defending the UK against autocracy and the American belief in the right of self-determination for all people:

1. The US shall demand that the UK grant Ireland independence in recognition of this great victory for democracy against autocracy.

2. If the UK refuses then the US shall no longer support the commonwealth and shall break all alliances with the UK, as too many men died in this war for the US to remain allied to an imperialistic power.

The limits of government-managed programs and costs versus private sector is one that confounds many Americans, with our aversion to extensive government and our faith in entrepreneurship. The private sector, or charity systems, can and often do provide services cheaper and more efficiently than a government agency can. However, my grandfather maintained, as I am inclined to agree, that certain issues are either too important, too far-reaching, or not viable enough to be entrusted to the vagaries and vicissitudes of private or charitable providers.

Education is chief among these issues. Who can honestly expect companies or charities to provide nation-wide, standardized and sufficient education? And without massive government subsidies, could anyone expect companies to provide education to people too poor to afford it, or in rural areas where classes may be extremely small? And think of the differences in curriculum. A school in Manhattan may teach science, math and history, while a school in rural Virginia might teach agriculture and local history. Such a system might be good for local needs but it would not address national needs and allow students the opportunity to propel themselves through social and economic ranks.

I think it's important to consider that larger government to provide certain services is not necessarily ideal, but it MAY be the lesser of many evils.

Walter Mandrake

Listening to these debates, one might forget that we have already passed a slew of Social reforms that no one is suggesting to remove. This war will not be made an excuse for the passage of unnecessary and burdensome legislation. Our returning soldiers need jobs, says the Hawks, soldiers who most likely lost there jobs when we entered this disastrous war. Then the Hawks say that we cannot look at the past, and must provide for the soldiers we have wronged.

We already have healthcare, and we already have unemployment insurance, let the returning soldiers enter those categories. Creatinga new system to support the government's desire for spending and war will only hamper us in the long run. Everyone will prosper from our post-war economic boom, jobs will be created, and this will only be done if the government learns its place in the world.

I do however support public schools, I support them so much that I am quite content that we already have them...

Right now, we need a president who will negotiate the end of the war on the basis of stability, not victory, and will provide for the freedom of its people economically and socially. I believe all my Republican compatriots agree with me, and it gladdens my heart to know that even if I do not win the nomination, a proper candidate will.

zagoroth said:

I do however support public schools, I support them so much that I am quite content that we already have them...

Click to expand...

((I know that we have them. In fact it was my previous character that made it the centerpiece of his election platform and enacted it when he became President. I was just using it as an example of government operations sometimes being better suited to provide services than private ones. At no point do I think they should ever be repealed.))

Jobs will be an issue for demobilized soldiers; perhaps not a major one, but it will still be problematic. A lot of jobs were left vacant when able-bodied men were conscripted for the war effort. We mobilized and employed the female population in many of these industries, especially war industries, to ensure that the economy did not falter. Now the issue is that many of these women, now having entered the workforce, will not wish to leave it, nor should they. That means fewer jobs available for demobilized soldiers.

If the economy was able to continue expanding while we were at war, then in theory more jobs should be available to be filled. If not, then consider that many of these men who were used to a regular paycheck, and have received military training, return home to find no jobs. Many of them may not have any skills to rely on except what they learned in the military, and could possibly turn to crime or rioting. A lot of these bills have been passed to try to counter such a problem. It is certainly better than doing nothing. You can argue until you're blue in the face that all of this would not be necessary if we hadn't entered the war. Such thinking is counterproductive. The fact of the matter is, we did. And now we must deal with the consequences. I would much rather deal with these consequences than consider a world where tyrrany has triumphed and where my children have to fight a war that we chose not to.

Walter Mandrake

I see that education is a major concern for many of you, so I will discuss at some length my ideas for it. Since we have seen the market prevail over government-sponsored businesses, and have seen gross mismanagement by the State, it would seem natural to me that we should have a freer educational system, with little direction or control by Washington. However, the poor should be able to learn, so I support transitioning our funds for schools into a voucher system which would help them in this new privatized system. As well, I wouldn't allow businesses to run amok with our education system, as I would place regulations on them to ensure that children are educated.

Now before one of you says that there can be no mass private education system, let me say this; the railways were built by the market, our great industries were built by the market, this nation was built by the market. We are blessed by great wealth, not only in natural resources and minerals and geography, but by the nature of our people, that generosity, that desire to better people's lives. We have seen this no better from our socialist presidents. I care deeply about the education of our children, and since I have my children enrolled in a private school, I would like for everyone to have such a benefit.

I will concede this; if elected, I will not 'destroy' our public education, but I will reform it, and I will make moves to privatize it, with the hopes that one day government does not need to educate the children.

---

On a different note, I am also happy to see that my Republican compatriots are standing by a stable peace, not a 'victory,' as some would call it. With any one of us at the head of the ticket, and the helm of this nation, America will prosper.

Marshall Daub said:

The limits of government-managed programs and costs versus private sector is one that confounds many Americans, with our aversion to extensive government and our faith in entrepreneurship. The private sector, or charity systems, can and often do provide services cheaper and more efficiently than a government agency can. However, my grandfather maintained, as I am inclined to agree, that certain issues are either too important, too far-reaching, or not viable enough to be entrusted to the vagaries and vicissitudes of private or charitable providers.

Education is chief among these issues. Who can honestly expect companies or charities to provide nation-wide, standardized and sufficient education? And without massive government subsidies, could anyone expect companies to provide education to people too poor to afford it, or in rural areas where classes may be extremely small? And think of the differences in curriculum. A school in Manhattan may teach science, math and history, while a school in rural Virginia might teach agriculture and local history. Such a system might be good for local needs but it would not address national needs and allow students the opportunity to propel themselves through social and economic ranks.

I think it's important to consider that larger government to provide certain services is not necessarily ideal, but it MAY be the lesser of many evils.

Walter Mandrake

Click to expand...

I agree with this, Mr Jarvis' claims that the private sector will universally provide better, cheaper, more consistent service is frankly false.

Riccardo93 said:

I seek to revoke the system of slavery that is being legislated upon the America people! I would love to see all people have access to healthcare; however, the State not only is a poor choice for providing it (due to corruption, bureaucracy, and anti-competitive practices that inevitably get placed on the market), but problems arise in the legality of ethicality of such a system; should government be the provider? Should government force the market to it's will when an otherwise free market could very well provide as much, or more, of a product to the people? As well, if a state wants a healthcare system in place, then they are more than welcome to create one; unless you are opposed to local control, and favour central planning from Washington.

Click to expand...

As long as healthcare is not free someone will not be able to affordd it. If you can find anyone apart from the government willing to run healthcare for free, I imagine they will be able to.

People here talk about "getting out of the war". When will people start talking about victory? The American people don't want a Loser's Peace. We won the war, we should get a Victor's Peace!

yourworstnightm said:

People here talk about "getting out of the war". When will people start talking about victory? The American people don't want a Loser's Peace. We won the war, we should get a Victor's Peace!

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with Mr. Nightmore. We may not wish to be imperialists, but if not for concrete gains, then for what did so many of my friends die?

Simon von Ritter, Captain (retired)

((Been away for a while, waiting to see how things shaped up; I'm back in now!))

If we begin enforcing our views all around the globe, ultimately everyone will lose, and we will pay the heaviest price.

We have achieved victory, not for ourselves, but for the French and British. We were not at risk, at least not directly; they were. This war was fought entirely to please our European benefactors!