The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Devotist]

Spain will most certainly not want its honor diminished and one of its last colonial strongholds deprived of Spanish government, they will fight and Europe will be more sympathetic to the defender than the aggressor that fights over a handful of broken anarchists.

 

[komisha]

Mr. Callahan, how is promoting economic growth via tax cuts (i.e. letting people invest with their own money) bad for the economy? I have indeed read you platform, and I quoted you exactly. You also said that you would have "no new social spending without tax cuts." How do plan on paying for that? Or are you going to avoid social programs altogether? I am in no way lying to the people, Mr. Callahan; I am merely pointing out that earlier this campaign season, you advocated tax cuts and tariff reduction, and are now criticizing me for the same!

I never said tax cuts were bad. I stated it was irresponsible to promise both tax cuts and tariff reductions.

I did not advocate tax cuts in my 7 point plan, nor did I promise them.

"No new social spending without tax cuts." Means exactly that. In the present economy, I do not perceive the need for increased social spending levels or anticipate the budget surplus to cut tax levels. But I can assure the American public I will not further burden the public finances without also budgeting for alleviation of the tax burden.

He 'supports' a 'fair tax' system, yet admits there will be 'tax gaps.' Do you want a man who advocates punishing business, supports war with Spain (you won't reinstate Mandrake because of a 'naval war'), and condemns me for having a much more stable, more sensible, economic policy.

I do support a fair tax system. I don't want there to be gaps, but it can occur during the gradual adjustment of the tax system. I promise that there will not be a tax difference between any two citizens of more than 10% during my administration, which is something you do not promise. You may call for tax cuts, but for all we know it could be 1% on the poor and 15% on the rich.

I have plans for the Cuban Question I will not divulge until the primaries are over, however you accuse me of jingoistic intentions because I won't appoint your former running mate at the head of a naval war? He asked to be put in charge of the armed forces in the event of any Cuban military action, and I refused even the hypothetical appointment because of rational strategic concerns.

I must not be clear enough on the final point there. So I'll speak a little louder:

I condemn you for having an unstable and unreasoned economic policy.

...sacrifice American soldiers in a war over a couple dozen Rebels? I would think a relative of a distinguished general would be made of sterner stuff...

Several hundred Confederate officials, officers and sympathisers escaped from Charleston on the rump Confederate fleet alone. Do you not think more joined them by private means? More than enough to organise and support insurrection in another country.

As to the comment about my status, I do not consider myself a war hero, no. I was a humble artillery officer for all of 17 years, saw few and had fewer, glorious moments on the Virginia front. But do not take me for a backwards city cretin. I bring practical problem solving skills to the table, as Im sure President Mandrake could appreciate.

 

[Revan529]

So, you, as a Union Boss, would not increase social spending? Regardless, I have stated that I will deregulate, and move programmes to the states and the market, allowing more room for such tax cuts and tariff reductions. However, I merely said I would like to continue cutting them; I only promised I wouldn't raise them.

I do not have to promise that there will be no tax gap, because there won't be; that is the purpose of a flat tax, to tax everyone at the same percent.

I also believe you are misconstruing what President Mandrake said; he only wants to return to the army, not because he wants war, but because he loves the troops. As well, I am quite certain he would appreciate having the man who helped his presidential run, and an experienced leader, succeed him.

Are you implying that the Confederates are taking control of Cuba, or are they planning a coup here? In the former case, if they threaten American peace, then an attack could be justified (though I certain Spain will not long endure guerrillas taking control of one of their colonies); in the latter, I doubt the American people would abide by that, and the Confederates would not have the power to maintain that... military junta.

However, I can relate to your military service: during my brief stint in the U.S. Army, I commanded a battery of artillery. Though I also served as a commander in the Texas War, and war the (de-facto) Head of the California Union Militia. I do believe you served longer than I did, but I have held more command positions.

 

[komisha]

So, you, as a Union Boss, would not increase social spending? Regardless, I have stated that I will deregulate, and move programmes to the states and the market, allowing more room for such tax cuts and tariff reductions.

I read this as saying you will reduce social expenditure to pay for your tax and tariff reduction platform. You ask how I can be a 'union boss' and advocate no new reforms? I had thought that no politician would dare sacrifice the workers' vote by throwing their hard fought rights at the mercy of the states that you assume will acquiesce.

I do not have to promise that there will be no tax gap, because there won't be; that is the purpose of a flat tax, to tax everyone at the same percent.

Good luck making that an unbreakable policy. You heard it here, no tax gaps ever...

I also believe you are misconstruing what President Mandrake said; he only wants to return to the army, not because he wants war, but because he loves the troops.

((....I would be pleased to be reinstated as General-in-Chief of the Army and lead the war against Spain))

He may love the troops, but he can love them as a lieutenant-general at most. Any higher rank in the Army would merit a significant conflict or an imperious administration. Would your administration seriously need such assistance in controlling the armed forces?

 

[Revan529]

Then, Mr. Callahan, are you saying that unemployment benefits, regulated work hours, and the like are human rights, granted from God Himself? Or do you believe that the government can bestow rights to people, and can just as easily, take them away? I care about workers, and you assume my policies will be horrible for them, when, in actuality they will be beneficial. One, we are lowering their taxes (in my system, there may arise minor, temporary gaps; however, unlike your progressive tax, my goal is to balance out the percentages, not widen the distance), which will put more money in their pockets; but before you say "the industrialists will steal it from them!", states have every right to make worker legislation. If they pass laws, its none of my business, and, as long as it is constitutional, I will have no problem with local, state, regulation. Two, with the lower tariff and tax rates, not only will we have higher revenues, which lead to more jobs, we will have better paying jobs, as a competitive market strives to keep its best and brightest, and the best way to do that is to pay them more.

If the issue is as severe as you suggest, Mr. Callahan, the states will be obliged to acquiesce; and considering some of the more progressive governors we have (Governor Glynn of my home state, for instance), I am certain some measures would be passed. However, is it the role of the federal government it involve itself in the market? To dictate, mandate, regulate, and subjugate industry?

((That was not the general, but Marshall speaking for himself)). President Mandrake is an experienced commander, and has the best interests of the army, and this country, at heart. I believe he would make a fine leader, since my administration would be more involved in diplomatic negotiations with the Spanish, and I would have no problem appointing him in such an office; in fact, I would eagerly make him Secretary of War, since his battlefield knowledge, and his desire for peace (as this administration has sought) makes him a solid choice; but I will leave that until after the election. However, since you are so eager for conflict with Spain ((comparatively, at least, with most of the candidates, with the exception of Khur)), its seems you would need more commanders for the army, in the event of war breaking out, which you have not ruled out as a possibility.

 

[Spitfire5793]

I do not have to promise that there will be no tax gap, because there won't be; that is the purpose of a flat tax, to tax everyone at the same percent.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Surely the poor should be taxed less and the rich taxed more? I know I am saying I should get taxed more, however the rich can spare a pound or two. The poor can't.

 

[Mikeboy]

Never thought I'd see myself agreeing with a Howard.

I would not expand the powers of the FBI, however I would sectorise it to improve efficiency with two or more sectors; the first being a criminal investigative sector to tackle "normal" interstate crime and the other an internal defence sector to investigate serious threats to our nation (such as the anarchists).

 

[Revan529]

In a sense, Mr. Howard, you are right, the rich will pay more, but on a percentage level, it will be equal. That is, a poor man makes ten dollars, and we tax at, say, ten percent. He will pay a dollar. A rich man makes one thousand dollars and at the same rate, pays one hundred dollars. He is paying more, but we are treating all people equally, not favouring the rich or the poor. At the same note, it allows businesmen, like yourself, to create more jobs, raise employees pay, provide benefits, and even create foundations and charities to further help the poor.

Now, I can already hear someone say "that poor man needs that dollar!" Let me say this; with the current tariff level, and my support for farmers and agriculturalists, the cost of food will decrease, reducing hunger and poverty, and promoting further growth and prosperity.

I promise, as president, I will not accept pay, and I will oppose any congressional raises. Not only that, but I swear that, if we come into a deficit, I will personally help pay it off, voluntarily with my own fortune.

 

[BigBadBob]

Primary of 1876​

Republican Candidate(s):

Henry Jarvis (b. 1802), Vice-President of the Republic ((Riccardo93)). Jarvis, the oldest candidate to ever run for the nomination, promises free trade, a continuation of the War on Crime, and no wars over Confederate remnants.

Benjamin Rutledge (b. 1829), Senator for Maryland ((Devotist)). Rutledge is an unusual Republican in that he promises extensive government support. However, that support is aimed at farmers. Otherwise, he is like most Republicans, and believes that Jarvis’ age would work against the Vice-President.

New Democratic Candidate(s):

Eamon Callahan (b. 1825), General Secretary of the NLU ((komisha)). Callahan promises action against corruption, minimal intervention in the economy, and most strikingly the bringing of justice to the Cuban rebels within 4 years.

Federal Candidate(s):

Oliver Glynn (b. 1819), Governor of California ((Mikeboy)). Glynn, one of the first Californians to announce his support of the Federal Party, is most concerned about the question of Cuba, which he believes must be solved as soon as possible by any method available. It was his addressing of the issue that reignited the flame of debate over the Cuban situation.

Josaiah Bridgeworthy (b. 1836), Senator for Washington ((Rogov)). Bridgeworthy is a firm believer in the Federal party’s policy of more independent states, the role of the federal government being to define the responsibilities of these states, and handle foreign policy.

Roderick Khur (b. 1842), Senator for Ohio ((King50000)). The youngest candidate, Khur believes in the reinstitution of Jamous’ foreign policy, supporting Britain and Germany monetarily. He supports the Federal Party’s central tenet of delegation to the states.

--------------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

Voting time again.

Well, things are heating up over Cuba. Only the Republicans really seem to be saying No to the possibility of war anymore. Just so you know, I’ve started work on the great European political calamity that will make war on Spain a non-masochistic choice.

Also, PLEASE. I beg you. Put character birth dates into your sigs. Finding them in a 266-page thread is killing me.

 

[WelshDude]

In a sense, Mr. Howard, you are right, the rich will pay more, but on a percentage level, it will be equal. That is, a poor man makes ten dollars, and we tax at, say, ten percent. He will pay a dollar. A rich man makes one thousand dollars and at the same rate, pays one hundred dollars. He is paying more, but we are treating all people equally, not favouring the rich or the poor. At the same note, it allows businesmen, like yourself, to create more jobs, raise employees pay, provide benefits, and even create foundations and charities to further help the poor.

Now, I can already hear someone say "that poor man needs that dollar!" Let me say this; with the current tariff level, and my support for farmers and agriculturalists, the cost of food will decrease, reducing hunger and poverty, and promoting further growth and prosperity.

I promise, as president, I will not accept pay, and I will oppose any congressional raises. Not only that, but I swear that, if we come into a deficit, I will personally help pay it off, voluntarily with my own fortune.

But the rich man has nine hundred dollars. Would he miss a hundred more? If the poor man can get by with nine, then why if we fall into deficit why are we letting the rich get away with nine hundred? If they truly miss it that much, they can invest it in creating businesses and jobs, creating more profit and helping the economy.

Also, if the price of food decreases, then so too does the profit of the food-producers, which reduces worker's wages, which means they spend less, which reduces other producer's profits.... etc. etc. Also most of our food is not imported, so the tariff reduction would hardly decrease the price anyway. Mr. Jarvis, I know from our previous discussions that putting you in charge of the nation's economy would be a sign of insanity, but at least try and make an effort. Pretty please?

 

[Revan529]

Mr. Walsh, as I have stated before, and in what you quoted, with that nine-hundred dollars, they can invest in the economy, create jobs, increase wages, etc., as Mr. Howard, my children, and every other industrialist has done. Not only that, how is ti fair for one man to pay 30% and another 15%?

As for tariffs, I can agree with you to a point; however, we do import certain foodstuffs, and with the lower taxes, the farmer can invest more of his money into food production, thereby increasing his output, but not his profits, for his domestic price might, and hopefully will, fall, but he will be able to export his surplus to other markets, such as India, Africa, South America, and any nation that suffers from famine.

Further, a tariff reduction will lower the costs on the American people who buy foreign goods, which means they spend less, and have more money to invest, innovate, produce, or what have you.

((And BBB, you say Bridgeworthy, born 1836, is youngest, but Khur was born in 1842; oh and I think Hensdale was older than me))

 

[BigBadBob]

((And BBB, you say Bridgeworthy, born 1836, is youngest, but Khur was born in 1842; oh and I think Hensdale was older than me))

Fixed. You are the oldest candidate at 74. Hensdale was 68 in 1857.

 

[Revan529]

((Ah, OK. Yeah, oldest EVA! (hacking cough)... and I put my D.o.B. in my sig.))

((THANK YOU NASELUS AND THUNDERHAWK3!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!!!Can I bear your children?))

((There ya go BBB))

I wish the best of luck to my opponents, and whoever wins this election lead the nation with wisdom and temperance!

 

[BigBadBob]

Alright everybody. It is now acceptable, and encouraged at least to do it once, until next Friday to express boundless gratitude to Naselus and Thunderhawk3 for putting into code the chain of events that will restore a working balance of power to the world of "The Presidents".

I thank them now. :wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:

With that I declare Naselus/ThunderHawk3 Appreciation Week to be officially begun.

Clarification: They coded events that will once and for all end the French menace to game balance. (What these events are exactly, I cannot tell you, as that would be a spoiler).

 

[Spitfire5793]

Alright everybody. It is now acceptable, and encouraged at least to do it once, until next Friday to express boundless gratitude to Naselus and Thunderhawk3 for putting into code the chain of events that will restore a working balance of power to the world of "The Presidents".

I thank them now. :wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:

With that I declare Naselus/ThunderHawk3 Appreciation Week to be officially begun.

What? I'm confused

 

[Revan529]

((They made events, methinks, to balance the game somehow))

 

[BigBadBob]

What? I'm confused

They coded events that will once and for all end the French menace to game balance. (What these events are exactly, I cannot tell you, as that would be a spoiler. )

 

[Revan529]

((World War I... in 1880...)

 

[Spitfire5793]

They coded events that will once and for all end the French menace to game balance. (What these events are exactly, I cannot tell you, as that would be a spoiler. )

((ahh, now I understand. Well done then!))

 

[King50000]

((Thank you Naselus and ThunderHawk3, I don't know what I'm thanking you for yet, but I'm sure it will be good

And I don't understand how my opinion on Cuba is so harsh. I'm the only Federal candidate calling for there to not be an invasion, that other stuff is Plan B if diplomatic talks break down. Pretty much Roderick's entire policy is Jamous' ))