The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

The Industrial Revolution though, is a great example of individual innovation. The British problem is that ti still constricts its economy too greatly. That is not to say that I don't see your point, but would the problem be at all alleviated by government intervention? No, because the government must acquire money from either the backs of the poor or the banks of the rich. From the poor, it would only harm those it was intending to help, and would make them reliant on the government, not themselves, the opposite of liberty. To tax the rich would make them less competitive and would lead to monopolies and unemployment, further hurting the poor.

The industrial revolution is not perfect, no, but it has lead to European dominance economically, and that is what we're striving for. Furthermore, America has little problem with unemployment, seeing how so many people immigrate to her.

But, ultimately, regulations harm the very people they intend to protect, and high taxes infringe on the individuals right to property, a tenant of liberalism, freedom, and this nation!

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Candidate for President

Riccardo93 said:

And Mr. Howard, your earlier approach seemed to be laissez-faire. Have a change of heart? The Libertarians starting to make sense to you (if that's what has happened, I'm quite concerned)? A mixed economy would be even worse, since the government has rarely done anything efficiently.

Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. I do support laissez-faire, when it comes to the construction and management of factories and businesses. Schools, utilities, ect must firmly remain under Goverment control. This kind of system works extremely well in the UK and other nations. So why not here? If done properly, the system can be very efficient and reduce wastage.

"If done properly" is the problem. Government rarely does things properly or economically. But that is not my main problem with government run education; it's an issue of constitutionality. States can control their education, churches can run schools, private enterprise can start schools or foundations to pay for schooling, but the federal government would be taking great liberty in interpreting the constitution, and would likely create a system of overpaid, inefficient teachers and uncaring students. Other utilities and such should be under the jurisdiction of the states, as per the constitution. The constitution is not something that should be taken as a referral document, one which we can overlook if it inconveniences us; it is the guideline to governance, a guarantor of rights, and should be treated as such.

If you support laissez-faire in the efficient management of businesses and industries, why would it be so hard to have privatised education (note: privatised is not expensive and for the rich). If the government should handle something as important as the education of our youth, then why should free enterprise exist at all? I am merely pointing out a flaw in you ideals; you claim to support liberty and capitalism, but seem more in favour of of corporatism and government interventionism.

The free market has created this progress, not the government. Businessmen like ourselves, Mr. Howard, have been the driving force in creating jobs and aiding the poor. The government interferes and causes greater expenses for myself, and I cannot contribute as much to charities because of that.

Senator Henry J. Jarvis, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Candidate for President

Riccardo93 said:

"If done properly" is the problem. Government rarely does things properly or economically. But that is not my main problem with government run education; it's an issue of constitutionality. States can control their education, churches can run schools, private enterprise can start schools or foundations to pay for schooling, but the federal government would be taking great liberty in interpreting the constitution, and would likely create a system of overpaid, inefficient teachers and uncaring students. Other utilities and such should be under the jurisdiction of the states, as per the constitution. The constitution is not something that should be taken as a referral document, one which we can overlook if it inconveniences us; it is the guideline to governance, a guarantor of rights, and should be treated as such.

If you support laissez-faire in the efficient management of businesses and industries, why would it be so hard to have privatised education (note: privatised is not expensive and for the rich). If the government should handle something as important as the education of our youth, then why should free enterprise exist at all? I am merely pointing out a flaw in you ideals; you claim to support liberty and capitalism, but seem more in favour of of corporatism and government interventionism.

The free market has created this progress, not the government. Businessmen like ourselves, Mr. Howard, have been the driving force in creating jobs and aiding the poor. The government interferes and causes greater expenses for myself, and I cannot contribute as much to charities because of that.

Senator Henry J. Jarvis, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Candidate for President

Click to expand...

Maybe a republican Goverment couldn't do it properly, but I'm sure the New Democrats could. The problem with privatised schools is this, Their main aim is to make a profit, not provide a service. The current system ensures free universal education. But as for your system, do you propose students pay for their education every year? How much will is cost? What about poorer families? Who will decide the curriculum? And please stop with all the hot air, get to the point.

Our education system has worker extremely well so far, why change an already successful system?

Thomas Howard
Senator of Massachusetts and CEO of Howard Industries
Defender of Eqality and the freedom of choice

time to join in!

Character: Neil Dolbert,Official U.S. Ambassador to Liberia. Born 1830. Joining politics at an incredibly young age, Neil decided that the field of diplomacy was more to his liking and became the official U.S. ambassador to Liberia, a post he has held for the last 6 years. During the civil war he fanatically supported the Union due to his financial intrests there. In fact Neil has almost no opinion about anything and only truely cares for personal gain. While this makes him great for politics, many wonder why the head of state at the time assinged him as an ambassador. Neil currently doesn't support any one party.

((am i doing it right?))

Mr. Howard, they do pay for it every year: through taxes. Those businesses are providing a service while making a profit. The government provides service while barely keeping its head above water, and forces us all to pay for its upkeep. So in the end, the people don't know enough to help themselves, and the government, for their sake, should control their education for them, is what eventually the argument becomes. Curriculum can be decided by the states, with some input from the federal government (suggestions, not mandates). It will cost less than a government run system, I assure you. I grant you that it may take longer for the poor to get an education, but they will be employed in the system, providing financial stability, which in turn lets them enroll their children into a school (perhaps of less quality, but it is still an education). In the end, they get an education, start careers, and further improve the system, streamlining, expanding, and other ways make better. An uncompetitive, bureaucratic system will not lead to growth and innovation.

Ah, and welcome Ambassador Dolbert!

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Candidate for President

Riccardo93 said:

Mr. Howard, they do pay for it every year: through taxes. Those businesses are providing a service while making a profit. The government provides service while barely keeping its head above water, and forces us all to pay for its upkeep. So in the end, the people don't know enough to help themselves, and the government, for their sake, should control their education for them, is what eventually the argument becomes. Curriculum can be decided by the states, with some input from the federal government (suggestions, not mandates). It will cost less than a government run system, I assure you. I grant you that it may take longer for the poor to get an education, but they will be employed in the system, providing financial stability, which in turn lets them enroll their children into a school (perhaps of less quality, but it is still an education). In the end, they get an education, start careers, and further improve the system, streamlining, expanding, and other ways make better. An uncompetitive, bureaucratic system will not lead to growth and innovation.

Ah, and welcome Ambassador Dolbert!

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Candidate for President

Click to expand...

You are basically deciding a child's future depending on their families wealth then? Your system will allow a rich mans incompetent son to go to the top school. While a creative, smart farmers daughter will be forced to go to a low quality school. It's outrageous! It's discrimination! How will this lead to growth and innovation?

You also continually tell us how the Goverment is inefficient and wastes money. However under your plan we will simply be wasting money, lining the pockets of these businesses that control our nations schools.

Our nations taxs are going to the richest under your plan.

To have a better future for you children, Vote Thomas Howard!

P.S. Welcome Ambasotor Dolbert

Speech by Thomas Howard, outside his house in Boston:

It seems the Republicans want to give our taxes and schools to the big businesses of America, lower the quality of our eduction system as well as discriminate against the poor of America. Just so they can lower the governments costs.

I ask, Does this make sense to any American? What parent wants this? Are the Republicans mad? [Cheering]

To continue with our successful education formula, Vote New Democrat! Vote Thomas Howard! [Thonderous applause].

*Mr Howard goes back inside as his dinner is ready*

I would ask General Mandrake for a clarification on his education platform; I believe you are suggesting that federal funding would be earmarked for schools, but that the states would remain the ultimate arbiters of curricula and so forth. Is this correct, or am I mistaken?

((The profit sharing is my idea I've been saying it since about 2 elections ago))

My vote goes to Mr. Jarvis.

Republican: Gen. Mandrake

All Americans should have access to education regardless of their families wealth. In this way all will have the chance to improve their situation in our free and prosperous economy. Our factory owners will need educated literate workers as industrial technology continues to improve, both as craftsmen and clerks.

((What is the current literacy rate?))

BigBadBob said:

Huh, my memory remembers it coming with Bryan and National Vinogradism in 1861-5, but I removed the Bryan's idea part from the statement.

Click to expand...

He was for the distribution of shares among worker. Both give profits to the worker but my profit sharing keeps the shares with the owners.

Thanks for removing it.

BigBadBob said:

PS. Gloa, the quick recap could do with 1869-73.

Click to expand...

((Updated to the last election. Haven't seen much to update it on yet in the primaries (can't really predict what will be major in AAR history at the moment), so that will probably be updated along with the general election.))

Republican:Mandrake

Avindian said:

I would ask General Mandrake for a clarification on his education platform; I believe you are suggesting that federal funding would be earmarked for schools, but that the states would remain the ultimate arbiters of curricula and so forth. Is this correct, or am I mistaken?

Click to expand...

My pleasure, Senator. Under my education plan, the Federal government will, without raising taxes, establish a fund that will be used to construct modest schools in urban and rural areas. A small department, let's call it the Education Oversight Board, will also be created. Local or state governments will be encouraged to petition this Board for aid in funding for the construction of schools in their area. The number of schools an area will be allowed will be determined by population for urban areas and geographical size for rural areas (so that children won't have to travel 50 miles a day just to go to school), with an adjustable target goal of no more than 30 students per classroom (an initial estimate).

The Education Oversight Board will have two functions, and two functions only: to consider the funding requirements for schools and basic start-up supplies and to disburse those funds, and to establish a nation-wide standard for curricula, ranging from arithmetic to science, English language, and American history. Every year funding spent will be reviewed by Congress to determine if the process is efficient, or if fewer/more funds are needed.

From the point the schools are constructed, local and state governments will be responsible for maintenance of buildings, supplies, and pay for teachers.

Now I've considered an issue that is likely to arise, and if elected, would present it to Congress for approval along with this education proposal:
Given the current state of education in our nation, it may be difficult to find qualified teachers for schools, particularly in rural areas that have little to no access to education already. If approved, one more fund would be established to provide training and pay for up to six months for teachers for schools that are having difficulty staffing or paying their positions. This would also utilize the 30:1 students to teacher goal ratio.

All of this provides a basic framework for standardized education, available to EVERYONE, that can be added to or subtracted from in the future as needed. Expenditure will be offset by the economic initiatives I outlined in my platform, but since this is a long-term investment, it must be expected that the system will require significant investment up-front, with the payoff coming down the road with a literate, well-educated work force that will propel our industry and business to new heights.

Lastly, as also previously stated, this program is optional. Parents may choose to send their children to existing private schools run by companies or charities at their discretion. If Congress so chooses, I encourage them to consider instituting a voucher system for those parents who wish to send their children to non-public schools, but that is not the aim of this initiative at this time. Certainly there will be other considerations for this initiative and I encourage any lawmakers or citizens with concerns to voice them, so that I may address them if I am elected.

Respectfully Yours,
General Maximilian Mandrake

((Sorry I haven't been very active but i am busy with school work. I'll maybe put my hat in the running next time.))

New Democrat: Thomas Howard

General Mandrake slaughtered innocent Americans and burned their homes and towns to the ground. He destroyed the families, employment and lives of thousands of Americans as well as destroying the economy, infastucture and productivity of the south. His actions were unessisary and heavy handed. Southers can never forgive you sir.

((Boom. Didn't see that coming, did you?))