-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((I always thought chauvinism was aimed solely at discrimination towards women, though I could be wrong))
I believe you are pandering to the hawks now, Mr. Callahan, seeing how Mr. Walker is an unabashed supporter of Cuban occupation.
I would suggest the members of the Federal Party decide who is really in favour of decentralization, a key tenant to the ideals of your party. I have long supported the rights of the individual and the states, and have fervently protected those rights from government intrusion. Mr. Callahan, from his days in the Libertarian Party, has advocated Social Democracy, which will, eventually, strip the rights of the states away, and trample on the rights of every minority, especially the minority of the individual.
I have not yet decided on a Vice-Presidential candidate. Actually, I would be more than happy to accept advice, and would consider any offer brought to me ((just message me, and offer some ideas!)).
I believe you are pandering to the hawks now, Mr. Callahan, seeing how Mr. Walker is an unabashed supporter of Cuban occupation.
I would suggest the members of the Federal Party decide who is really in favour of decentralization, a key tenant to the ideals of your party. I have long supported the rights of the individual and the states, and have fervently protected those rights from government intrusion. Mr. Callahan, from his days in the Libertarian Party, has advocated Social Democracy, which will, eventually, strip the rights of the states away, and trample on the rights of every minority, especially the minority of the individual.
I have not yet decided on a Vice-Presidential candidate. Actually, I would be more than happy to accept advice, and would consider any offer brought to me ((just message me, and offer some ideas!)).
I sincerely believe that America should not become entangled in European affairs, and that we, in almost all cases, abhor war and conflict. Instead, let us act as a mediator, an unbiased negotiator, and create our national power there; not as an imperialist power, not as a nation builder, not as a warring state, but as a diplomatic, republican, peaceful state. Our founders looked towards Switzerland as a guide; protect ourselves, but never to through ourselves into conflict, or to align ourselves with one faction, one nation, over another.
As I have stressed so many times before, and will continue to, we must act as a friendly, peaceful state, trading with all nations, meeting with all leaders, and supporting freedom through example. If that foreign policy is so abhorrent to you, then I can only pray you see that my opponents support for war, for imperialism, will lead only to death, destruction, and hatred.
I further wish to let it be known that I will not bow to popular opinion, or to political pressure; I have always, and will always, until my dying breath, preach the gospel of liberalism, the truth of war, the ideals of the founders, and the facts of life. Government should not involve itself in welfare: one, because it goes far beyond the scope the Constitution layed for it; two, government cannot effectively create a system that would aid all poor; three, it would allow government the power the support certain groups, or special interests, rather than adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law; four, it would become a system of income redistribution, wholly unconstitutional and opposed to the ideals of this Republic; five, it will promote dependency on the government, and will bias the electorate; six, it infringes on the rights of individuals, businesses, and states to act according to their own will, save where the rule of law is undermined, and another's rights assaulted.
War may be the popular idea today, favoured to bring in a paltry sum of impotent Rebels; but it would create an American Empire, borne from violence, bloodshed, and tyranny, as we would begin dictating the affairs of other peoples and nations, refuting our founding principle of self-determination.
As I have stressed so many times before, and will continue to, we must act as a friendly, peaceful state, trading with all nations, meeting with all leaders, and supporting freedom through example. If that foreign policy is so abhorrent to you, then I can only pray you see that my opponents support for war, for imperialism, will lead only to death, destruction, and hatred.
I further wish to let it be known that I will not bow to popular opinion, or to political pressure; I have always, and will always, until my dying breath, preach the gospel of liberalism, the truth of war, the ideals of the founders, and the facts of life. Government should not involve itself in welfare: one, because it goes far beyond the scope the Constitution layed for it; two, government cannot effectively create a system that would aid all poor; three, it would allow government the power the support certain groups, or special interests, rather than adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law; four, it would become a system of income redistribution, wholly unconstitutional and opposed to the ideals of this Republic; five, it will promote dependency on the government, and will bias the electorate; six, it infringes on the rights of individuals, businesses, and states to act according to their own will, save where the rule of law is undermined, and another's rights assaulted.
War may be the popular idea today, favoured to bring in a paltry sum of impotent Rebels; but it would create an American Empire, borne from violence, bloodshed, and tyranny, as we would begin dictating the affairs of other peoples and nations, refuting our founding principle of self-determination.
Last edited:
I don't have to pander to the hawks because you are a staunch pacifist. I chose a Vice President based on a compliment of policies and his independent alignment.
I had planned on a multi-party cabinet already, with some small adjustment it could incorporate the Federal candidates.
I had already planned on a multi-party cabinet as well, following in the footsteps of President Mandrake (he offered you a position, if I remember correctly).
Of course, you didn't need to pander to the hawks, since you seem so willing to go to war yourself. And just because you bring a businessman aboard, does not mean you are in favour of business; he may very well support government programmes, interventionism, and such, regardless as how it affects himself (partially because he will be part of the ruling class, and can exempt himself from such, with your progressive tax).
Of course, you didn't need to pander to the hawks, since you seem so willing to go to war yourself. And just because you bring a businessman aboard, does not mean you are in favour of business; he may very well support government programmes, interventionism, and such, regardless as how it affects himself (partially because he will be part of the ruling class, and can exempt himself from such, with your progressive tax).
Last edited:
You and I have different ideas about progressive tax than I that remark makes no sense. President Mandrake didn't offer cabinet positions, he offered minor sincures to his extrapolitical supporters.
Last edited:
A progressive tax allows room for different businesses, no, different companies, to be taxes at separate rates, allowing more chance of corruption and government bribing, manipulating, and otherwise distorting the market. As for Mandrake, he may not have offered cabinet positions, but he offered you and former Senator Howard, both running against him, offices, trying to bridge the gap between the parties that was growing. You also seem to be quoting me out of context sir.
You seem to be inventing my policies so you can oppose them. I haven't said anything about business tax. Even then, I have constantly advocated honest competition.
In the light of the recent tax debate Mr. Callahan and myself have started, I have decided that, rather than having the president arbitrarily set a level of taxation on every strata, every business, or every company, the Congress should pass a new Amendment to ensure that All men are treated equally, that none are taxed unfairly, and will create an environment for economic growth, investment, and stability.
1. The United States Government will adhere to fiscal discipline; as such, the tax rate for ALL income earners, from individuals, organizations, and businesses, will be set to any level not above 10%, with the exception of being in a time of war, where the will be can be raised up to a maximum of 15% for the first fiscal year of the conflict and lasting until the first fiscal year after the war's end.
2. The United States Government will affirm that this, being an amendment, means that any tax policy proposed by the president, or any member of society be taken directly to a vote by the Congress, rather then just taken upon by the president (as it happens in-game). This will be to prevent corruption and mistreatment of businesses and individuals.
3. The United States Government shall NOT, under any circumstances, accept a budget deficit, outside of war. Spending decreases and tax increases to the 10% (or 15%) level will be implemented should such a deficit arise.
4. The debt shall be slowly payed off from the accumulated revenue to further stabilize the economy, and ensure that the market has a firm base from which to invest, innovate and expand.
I hope that the legislators of this great Union will see the merit of my proposal, and will pass the bill. This is the most effective way, in my opinion, to keep any president from becoming an arbitrary tax-man, picking the winners and losers of the market.
JARVIS TAX AMENDMENT
1. The United States Government will adhere to fiscal discipline; as such, the tax rate for ALL income earners, from individuals, organizations, and businesses, will be set to any level not above 10%, with the exception of being in a time of war, where the will be can be raised up to a maximum of 15% for the first fiscal year of the conflict and lasting until the first fiscal year after the war's end.
2. The United States Government will affirm that this, being an amendment, means that any tax policy proposed by the president, or any member of society be taken directly to a vote by the Congress, rather then just taken upon by the president (as it happens in-game). This will be to prevent corruption and mistreatment of businesses and individuals.
3. The United States Government shall NOT, under any circumstances, accept a budget deficit, outside of war. Spending decreases and tax increases to the 10% (or 15%) level will be implemented should such a deficit arise.
4. The debt shall be slowly payed off from the accumulated revenue to further stabilize the economy, and ensure that the market has a firm base from which to invest, innovate and expand.
I hope that the legislators of this great Union will see the merit of my proposal, and will pass the bill. This is the most effective way, in my opinion, to keep any president from becoming an arbitrary tax-man, picking the winners and losers of the market.
You can say one thing, Mr. Callahan, and do the exact opposite. You have never held public office; we don't know what you really support. You could very well be the populist firebrand you accuse me of being! However, I know two things for certain: you overall worldview, and my record. You have called yourself a democratic socialist, both ideals are utterly opposed to the principles that founded this nation. As for my record; as Secretary of State for the Republic of Texas, I brought statehood and abolition. As Governor of California, I kept low taxes, a deregulated market, and had eleven our of twelve years of budget surplus'. As Senator, I argued and legislated in favour of the Constitution, while you argued moving away from it. And as Vice-President, I have fought against corruption, curbed government spending, taxation, and have consistently said the same thing for over forty years: Protect the Constitution!
As for your taxation policy, you would not tax businesses? That hardly seems progressive to me. Why would you tax the public but not business.You did not have to say you would tax business, it was implied by your very policy! If you were to tax business, would implement a flat tax, like what I've advocated, or will you implement a progressive tax, which, as I wrote earlier, could be abused? As well, I doubt honest competition can thrive when government forces charity, interventionism, regulation, and controls on the market.
What Mr. Callahan means is that we would ensure that all sections of society had the ability to feed themselves and their families. Are your precious principles really more important than men's lives? President Mandrake seta more dangerous precedent by saying he would overrule Congress, should it disagree with him. Did that come to anything? No. Will preventing men from starving set anything but a good precedent? No.
He would tax the rich men that own the businesses rather than the businesses themselves. The only thing a business tax would do is create extra bureucracy, something you have seemed to oppose until now.
First of all, I said I'd never mentioned business tax. Business tax is for the states to decide.
Secondly, your strange insistence that this country should not be a democracy is counter to your otherwise constitutional orthodoxy. If the people are not the rulers of this nation, who is?
Thirdly, you're amending what act of congress? So here's my revision, including amendments, of your tax bill:
1. The United States government will not set a tax on business, as that is the sole preserve of the states.
2. a) The tax rate on any individual will not exceed 25% excepting in a time of war permitted by congress
b) The tax rate on any individuals during a time of war shall not exceed 35%. The duration of the war being from the president's signing of the declaration to the end of the calendar year that a binding armistice is signed.
3. The United States Government will affirm that this, being an act of congress, cannot be changed on a President's order. But can only be amended by an act of congress.
4.a) The United States Government shall not accrue a debt of over $50,000 during peacetime and $150,000 during wartime.
b) Federal debt will be paid off at a rate of half the yearly budget surplus.
c) In the event that the government reaches the debt limit without reaching a budget surplus, the government will raise taxes to the limit specified in article 2.
d) In the event that taxation has failed to achieve a balanced budget, the present administration will be authorised to make emergency cuts to any federal expenditure deemed necessary to return to a balanced budget.
Secondly, your strange insistence that this country should not be a democracy is counter to your otherwise constitutional orthodoxy. If the people are not the rulers of this nation, who is?
Thirdly, you're amending what act of congress? So here's my revision, including amendments, of your tax bill:
Tax Regulation Act [1876]
1. The United States government will not set a tax on business, as that is the sole preserve of the states.
2. a) The tax rate on any individual will not exceed 25% excepting in a time of war permitted by congress
b) The tax rate on any individuals during a time of war shall not exceed 35%. The duration of the war being from the president's signing of the declaration to the end of the calendar year that a binding armistice is signed.
3. The United States Government will affirm that this, being an act of congress, cannot be changed on a President's order. But can only be amended by an act of congress.
4.a) The United States Government shall not accrue a debt of over $50,000 during peacetime and $150,000 during wartime.
b) Federal debt will be paid off at a rate of half the yearly budget surplus.
c) In the event that the government reaches the debt limit without reaching a budget surplus, the government will raise taxes to the limit specified in article 2.
d) In the event that taxation has failed to achieve a balanced budget, the present administration will be authorised to make emergency cuts to any federal expenditure deemed necessary to return to a balanced budget.
Last edited:
I, James Harrison, as a member of the Federal Party, do hereby cast my vote for Oliver Glynn.
((I didn't see any actual votes, so Harrison has spoken.
The polls are closed. Candidates will be:
Republican: Henry Jarvis
New Democrat: Eamon Callahan
Federal: Oliver Glynn
I'll allow a continuation of talks on the possible ND/Fed. Fusion Ticket, but it must end up with policies about half-and-half if it happens)).
((I didn't see any actual votes, so Harrison has spoken.
The polls are closed. Candidates will be:
Republican: Henry Jarvis
New Democrat: Eamon Callahan
Federal: Oliver Glynn
I'll allow a continuation of talks on the possible ND/Fed. Fusion Ticket, but it must end up with policies about half-and-half if it happens)).
((Atomicsoda))
((I wouldn't mind a fusion ticket, as long as my current VP pick isn't compromised. After all, there isn't much different in the policies of Glynne and myself.))
Last edited:
Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
John Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Patrick Henry: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Karl Marx: "Democracy is the road to socialism."
That I dislike democracy is wholly constitutional, as you can from these quotes. I myself have never advocated a business tax, and personally am opposed to an income tax, which why I wish to see it lowered. Veto is a power of the president; Mandrake, though a little forceful, did nothing unconstitutional. As well, if we allow fifty-one percent to tyrannize forty-nine percent, and we tax the wealthy from creating new jobs, are we really helping anyone? The money from the rich may go to help the poor, but it could easily go to fund for war, and could have easily may have been a job for the poor man.
The only good form of welfare is a job.
As well, Mr. Callahan, what is your record, other than what I mentioned. You are a unionist, an avowed socialist, and have never one an election (and you've run several times).
((I'll change it to Act, I just started typing without thinking about the name! Never mind, I remember I was amending the Constitution, requires more votes, but is harder to repeal))
((And again, anyone interested in becoming Vice President, or wants to advise me, send me a message!))
John Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Patrick Henry: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Karl Marx: "Democracy is the road to socialism."
That I dislike democracy is wholly constitutional, as you can from these quotes. I myself have never advocated a business tax, and personally am opposed to an income tax, which why I wish to see it lowered. Veto is a power of the president; Mandrake, though a little forceful, did nothing unconstitutional. As well, if we allow fifty-one percent to tyrannize forty-nine percent, and we tax the wealthy from creating new jobs, are we really helping anyone? The money from the rich may go to help the poor, but it could easily go to fund for war, and could have easily may have been a job for the poor man.
The only good form of welfare is a job.
As well, Mr. Callahan, what is your record, other than what I mentioned. You are a unionist, an avowed socialist, and have never one an election (and you've run several times).
((I'll change it to Act, I just started typing without thinking about the name! Never mind, I remember I was amending the Constitution, requires more votes, but is harder to repeal))
((And again, anyone interested in becoming Vice President, or wants to advise me, send me a message!))
Last edited:
((I thought you may have meant that, but I can't recall if we can do that... It's not like any Acts of congress have been repealed yet anyway.))
If fifty-one percent of the nation voted for you, and forty-nine percent of the natvion voted for Mr Callahan, then under your definition you would be an oppressor, would it not?
That is twisting words in a heinous and libelous manner Mr. Senator.
The President is chosen by the people, and is understood to be a person of grandeur and respect. If any President would show signs of tyrannical behavior, there are still both Congress and the Supreme Court to keep him in check. That is how this glorious republic works, checks and balances on top of the majority vote.