The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Revan529]

I doubt Cuba poses any real risk; Mexico could again degenerate into dictatorship and despotism, and British favour with us will last only so long, especially if we disrupt the balance of power by weakening Spain, thereby weakening France, strengthening Germany, which would harm Anglo-German relations, and upset the current system.

 

[William the III]

I don't agree. Prussia has shown to be our ally inn the past and they are strenghened, we and the british are strengthened. The German are the only ones willing to conteract the french who are allies to the spanish and because neither side is willing to act for fear of anather great european war. In this case we can without fear ( as long as we are sure to have British on our side, and the spanish must have pissed them off somehow, not to mention it will also weaken the french, who have been in the 1st spot for a bit to long now)

 

[Revan529]

When the Germans are strengthened, the balance of power is changed, and creates the risk of a new Napoleon rising from Berlin. The British, supportive as they may be at the moment, have shown they will drop an alliance the instance it becomes a liability. As well, Britain will be none to pleased about our growing imperialism, or interventionism, or strong-armed diplomacy for those who dislike the sound of the previous two, and will, as it has done with Russia, Austria, and countless other states, move to isolate us, and weaken us. France will not abandon Spain, and still is a force to be reckoned with. As well, we count to much upon our British and German 'friends;' the British have their own motives, and Germany saw us as a supplier for his own wars.

 

[William the III]

When the Germans are strengthened, the balance of power is changed, and creates the risk of a new Napoleon rising from Berlin. The British, supportive as they may be at the moment, have shown they will drop an alliance the instance it becomes a liability. As well, Britain will be none to pleased about our growing imperialism, or interventionism, or strong-armed diplomacy for those who dislike the sound of the previous two, and will, as it has done with Russia, Austria, and countless other states, move to isolate us, and weaken us. France will not abandon Spain, and still is a force to be reckoned with. As well, we count to much upon our British and German 'friends;' the British have their own motives, and Germany saw us as a supplier for his own wars.

You say that the British will drop us when we become a liability. This is true, but if anything it will be an added advantage for them. They already rely on our industry to supply their trade, and soon we will be challenging their enemy in the french,who have long opposed them. As for the Germans they will not soon forget the Austrian war, or how we are challenging an ally of their rival, the French. If we do not go preach of a new crusade against European powers, but instead expand liberty to a new land they will not easily see us as the expansionist monsters you speak of. But this is no excuse for total war, we continue to try to resolve this conflict diplomatically, but if that route holds no success, we have but one option left. We should include our allies in this effort and make sure to explin to hem what they could gain. Perhaps then the spanish will be more forthcoming.
None the less we should still try to strengthen our ties to our friends in Europe, to help resolve our current crisis and to help grow trade between our nations.

 

[William the III]

We should also try to come closer to the Russians, lest they act aginst us or our allies in any time soon.

 

[Devotist]

North Carolina will only support future involvement in Europe if all great powers are treated courteously while never going beyond friendly talks over tea. We desire either endearment or isolationism, not war.

 

[unmerged(252567)]

I find it interesting that the only opponents of the Republicans are more like the Republicans in policy then has been the case for decades, and support reaching many of the same goals, yet the Republican candidate has more vitriol than has been the case for quite some elections. Apparently it is not enough to want everyone's taxes to go down and to see the graduated degrees of taxation shrink closer together; one must also believe that graduated tax is unfair, something even the great capitalist philosopher Adam Smith disagreed with, in order to appease Mr.Jarvis' twisted and inaccurate view of what is or isn't constitutional or fundamentally American.

I for one, and one of many it would seem, congratulate Mr.Callahan for having the courage to defend the spirit of graduated taxation and social justice while having the leadership skills and preparation for governance enough to have a plan that will make such just and fair measures themselves happily unnecessary to secure continued fairness for the American people. If there are any swing voters out there who believe you cannot have someone who believes in social progress and in balanced budgets and lower taxes, I would point them to the policies and statements of Eamon Callahan; who surely represents a brighter tomorrow for all Americans, East and West.

 

[Revan529]

Social justice, or social engineering, Mr. Bridgeworthy? My opposition to the a graduated, progressive tax is based on the principle that all people fairly, and I fail to see how taxing on man at 35% and another at 5% or what have you, is fair. If someone advocated taxing the rich at 5% and a poor man at 25%, you'd all, rightfully, be up in arms. A flat tax is the best way to treat all people fairly. If treating people fairly is not constitutional, or American, I don't know what is. You must remember, Adam Smith often contradicted himself, and at the turn of the century, his arguments were used on both sides of economic debate in Britain.

If farmers, industrialists, workers, tradesmen, merchants, and all people of America wish to live in prosperity, peace, and plenty, a vote for JARVIS-CARR is the only logical choice.

 

[Devotist]

I do not understand how or why social reforms will only be passed without tax increases under Mr. Callahan's administration. He claims to want a balanced budget, but is it not unsustainable for the government that be to promise bread and circuses without gold?

congratulate Mr.Callahan for having the courage to defend the spirit of graduated taxation and social justice while having the leadership skills and preparation for governance enough to have a plan that will make such just and fair measures themselves happily unnecessary to secure continued fairness for the American people

Mr. Bridgeworthy, how does this work? "Happily unnecessary"? Then why elect Mr. Callahan, this person you flock to as a champion of fairness?

Let us not forget your twisted view of fairness is not fairness, it is politics. How dangerous is it if we extend fairness to make it change depending on one's status? Is taking two-hundred cattle off a farmer with five-hundred cattle as fair as taking five cattle off twenty-five cattle? No, sir, it is not! Gearing policies towards the poor to earn political points now, are we? What about fairness for hardworking factory owners, shall you defend your position by calling them lazy and more able to pay taxes? Heh, you and your colleagues from the radical North and peculiar West may do so, but that is no less corrupt than the supposed flexibility of the interpretation of the Constitution for Mr. Jarvis. What shall you do next, championing fairness? Shall you partition the great commercial estates of the South and redistribute them without the consent of the landowner? Will you force planters to give up a large portion of their crop to make competition in local and larger markets "fair"? What courage is that, attacking those who are few in number and weak in sentiment? What justice is administered by government thievery, stripping us of our hard-earned assets and levying oppressive taxes in the name of fairness? Who will guard the guardsman? Who will watch the watchman? What other things shall you do to those who lack strength in numbers? Perhaps you have forgotten many of us first came to these shores in order to secure rights to property and personal fortune, aspects of life we hold no less dear than an honest and good society. You offer no incentive to the capitalist if you shall deprive him of his riches and the fruits of his labor, you offer no sympathy to the rich hand that feeds you, but by God do you pander to the populist hand that hangs lower for you! Instead you bite the damn hand, play politics, and seek to divide on the basis of class! Gentlemen, what happened because of that? Have we forgotten the consequences of sectionalism, now focused not on states and regions but on classes and property?

North Carolina does not like the foul odor of populism, nor does she enjoy bending definitions for political gain. We would have sympathized with the Democratic-Federalist ticket had they refrained from endorsing such beliefs (among other policies), but we have no choice. How bitter it is for North Carolina to flock to the Republican banner!

 

[atomicsoda]

No one is proposing that the upper class be hit with punitive taxes, only that the tax rate for the wealthiest is slightly higher than it is for the poor. This will be accomplished by lowering taxes and tariffs on the poorest citizens not raising them on the wealthiest. Letting the poorest keep more of their hard earned dollars and spend it on products they desire will only be good for the overall economy. As a businessman I want more customers to be able to afford my products.

 

[komisha]

((P.S. was wondering if I could have an appointement, like assistant sec. of state or Navy?))

((Anything outside the stated Cabinet positions is free for anyone (including Jarvis). The only major cabinet position left is Post-Master General. I suppose you could have the Ambassadorial or Departmental position if you wanted it, but field commands are going to be at a premium soon I suspect...))

 

[WelshDude]

Myself, Joseph Walker and Mr. Howard, all men who could hardly be classed as poor, agree that the tax percentage charged for the rich should be more than the poor. If we are willing to make that sacrifice, then why is Mr. Jarvis unwilling to enforce it?

 

[unmerged(252567)]

And why spit so much poison over it now, when it is politically opportune for his election, but when Eamon Callaghan has policies that will make such measures gradually obsolete?

In his platform he states an initiative to decrease this gap as part of a general tax lowering and budget balancing, but the sheer fact that he recognizes that the graduated tax has been a just and good thing is enough to incense Jarvis with more of his famous impotent fury; constantly lashing out at every minor disagreement with his personal philosophy as treasonous, unamerican, unconstitutional - things a man so partisan as to demonize such a historically moderate opposing platform has no right or credibility to be judge upon.

For Mr.Jarvis it is not enough for his opponents to want to lower everyone's taxes and to reach a point where we can fairly decrease the differences in graduated tax brackets, he decries everyone who challenges the unfair conditions the flat tax was originally instituted as being anti-constitutional! This is a man that does not care how far we've come, that by having the graduated tax and other mechanisms of reform we are reaching a point where we will not need them as much, this is a man who thinks they should have never existed in the first place.

Mr.Jarvis' continued campaign against history is nothing short of class warfare. For him you cannot be a freedom loving American unless you support his side in a war on all the classes below the upper class. While Eamon Callaghan heals rifts, Jarvis is seeking fresh casualties in his pursuit of class struggle, to soil the good name of the productive classes and mock the age old fight against injustice.

How can Americans elect a man for whom the only possible end to class conflict is the unconditional surrender of the working and middle classes to the undying supremacy and medieval-like false moral authority of the upper classes?

So this is America's message to the Jarvis campaign:
We've stopped fighting the class war a long time ago - why don't you do the same?

 

[Devotist]

There you go again, Mr. Bridgeworthy. Feeding the people this populist message that the rich should be taxed more, that is class warfare. You seem to imply the rich are not as productive as the poor, Mr. Bridgeworthy. Is this not pitting the rich against the poor, the investor against labor?

How can Americans elect a man for whom the only possible end to class conflict is the unconditional surrender of the working and middle classes to the undying supremacy and medieval-like false moral authority of the upper classes?

You forget we are people of idleness the poor cannot afford. Trying to distinguish yourself from your own kind gets you no points, Mr. Bridgeworthy. Not to mention a flat tax is not leading to this "medieval-like false moral authority" and "supremacy" of the upper classes. That is an exaggeration meant to appeal to voters. Alas, how the times have changed! People have forsaken the mirrors of old!

 

[WelshDude]

There you go again, Mr. Bridgeworthy. Feeding the people this populist message that the rich should be taxed more, that is class warfare. You seem to imply the rich are not as productive as the poor, Mr. Bridgeworthy. Is this not pitting the rich against the poor, the investor against labor?

Yet there are many rich members of this country who are calling for a higher tax on the rich than on the poor! We can spare another few dollars, so why make those poorer than us pay them instead?

 

[Revan529]

I believe in, not raising the poor's taxes, but lowering all three tax brtackets to 10%. My opponent, if his tax gaps were narrow (say 3%), would tax the rich at 25%, the middle class at 22%, and the poor at 19%. However, if he taxes the rich at 25%, and the other two classes at 5%, he has a significant tax gap, which he promised wouldn't happen, would hamper business growth, and is unconstitutional, because it is biased in favour of the poor. Again, if it were biased to the rich, you all would be spewing vitriolic anger in every direction; and you should! It would be unfair, and that is why my flat tax is superior.

And what 'medieval moral authority?' Seems to me your engaging in class warfare, Mr. Bridgeworthy, whilst I am hoping to aid all the classes through lower government regulation,m low taxes, and support for innovation. How does widening gaps, promoting inequality, heal 'class warfare,' or create equality; equality in poverty, perhaps. But I fail to see, either in theory or in history, where income redistribution, government control or mandate, and wars of folly and conquest, are not symbols of nations on decline.

And Mr. Walsh, if yoe desire so to give the government your money, you could always donate it to the treasury. I am certain the bureaucracy would appreciate it; any amount to keep it fed.

 

[Spitfire5793]

I believe in, not raising the poor's taxes, but lowering all three tax brtackets to 10%. My opponent, if his tax gaps were narrow (say 3%), would tax the rich at 25%, the middle class at 22%, and the poor at 19%. However, if he taxes the rich at 25%, and the other two classes at 5%, he has a significant tax gap, which he promised wouldn't happen, would hamper business growth, and is unconstitutional, because it is biased in favour of the poor. Again, if it were biased to the rich, you all would be spewing vitriolic anger in every direction; and you should! It would be unfair, and that is why my flat tax is superior.

And what 'medieval moral authority?' Seems to me your engaging in class warfare, Mr. Bridgeworthy, whilst I am hoping to aid all the classes through lower government regulation,m low taxes, and support for innovation. How does widening gaps, promoting inequality, heal 'class warfare,' or create equality; equality in poverty, perhaps. But I fail to see, either in theory or in history, where income redistribution, government control or mandate, and wars of folly and conquest, are not symbols of nations on decline.

And Mr. Walsh, if yoe desire so to give the government your money, you could always donate it to the treasury. I am certain the bureaucracy would appreciate it; any amount to keep it fed.

Here's the thing, I could easily, if I wanted, buy 250 loaves of bread and have mountains of cash to spare. All after tax. Whereas some of our poorest could only buy 1 loaf a week and have little left over. All after tax.

Now how is that fair?

A bit extra on the rich tax rate will not stop us from building factories. Furthermore, lowering the tax on the poor will give them a chance to set up a business, innovate and create jobs. Americas Industry does not have to be reliant on the rich.

Alfred Howard
Representative of Boston
CEO of Howard Industries

 

[Revan529]

Give the bread away... that's what I've said consistently. That's what I do, and my sons do, as well. You also said nothing about the 25%,22% and 19%, portion, Mr. Howard; and you neglected to mention the 25%, 5%,5% statement I made earlier as well; is it because you have no counter to them? I am certain the American business is not reliant on the rich; but all businessmen will become rich, if they are successful. This policy disincentivizes business growth, since you be taxed so much more highly, and possibly lose more money at a certain point; rather, it promotes government growth, private stagnation, and inequality!

 

[Mikeboy]

His statement that you can't cut taxes and maintain a balanced budget is false, as our economy continues to grow, especially in the department of exports with east asia being a market of particular interest, we will see an increase of tax revenues in real terms without an increase in taxation in percentage terms. This extra real tax will allow us to cut taxes or increase social spending, with of course a reasonable amount being put aside in reserve for if our economy faces a rainy day.

 

[Revan529]

((Mikeboy, is that agreeing with more, or countering me? Because that sounds like something I would've said about my tax and tariff reductions... except that social spending part))

Governor Glynne is correct in his statement; and my lower tax and tariff policy will encourage just such growth, whilst improving the lot in life of not only the poor, or the rich, but all Americans. However, Mr. Callahan's proposals increase government intrusion, actually raise taxes, discourages growth, and harms international trade through militaristic behaviour. My policies of peaceful coexistence, free trade, capitalism, charity, and lower taxes and tariffs (in both real and percentage terms) would be a boon for the economy.