-
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.
A flat tax would punish no one, if it maintained as a low flat tax, which is what we have; no one is being taxes at more than ten percent. I am no champion of the multimillionaires; my family may be wealthy, but we have long supported lowering taxes, for everyone. I personally, and I have said it many times, would like to see the income tax completely disappear; however, lowering taxes the way I did has helped with the economy. What you fail to realize is that the poor are living better now than they were before, due to the economic growth and the general increase of wages.
I would never say that the Republican Party have been free from big industry; but it would be disingenuous to say that we are the only party afflicted. And while it is unfortunate that you believe that the low tax policy of my party is somehow made to aid only the wealthy, when the past eight years of my administration have made it abundantly clear that it is patently false, I would like to see how having the rich pay so much more would be beneficial to the economy, and I would ask you how much the poor should be taxed ((BBB, how much were the poor taxed before the flat tax?))
Again, I would never say that the Republican policies would bring us to utopia; but I do agree with you that some systems are better than others. First, why should the state take such a deep interest in the poor? In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." If the state is to take broad new powers, and ensure that the People meet a certain quota, have a certain standard, why do we have a Constitution? Then going on that line of thought, how can both you and Sullivan, in one breath, both use the Constitution for your side (condemning the South), and, when it is more practical for you, completely ignores it? It seems to be that you would trample over the Constitution by issuing the Federal Government, and indeed only the Imperial Presidency, with such powers that the Founders would never have envisioned, and would bring them to tears and fury!
The Federal government has no, and I repeat No authority to expand its power in such a way; I know that you sincerely believe it will help the poor, but in the end, they will be enslaved, and this nation will falter from liberty.
I would never say that the Republican Party have been free from big industry; but it would be disingenuous to say that we are the only party afflicted. And while it is unfortunate that you believe that the low tax policy of my party is somehow made to aid only the wealthy, when the past eight years of my administration have made it abundantly clear that it is patently false, I would like to see how having the rich pay so much more would be beneficial to the economy, and I would ask you how much the poor should be taxed ((BBB, how much were the poor taxed before the flat tax?))
Again, I would never say that the Republican policies would bring us to utopia; but I do agree with you that some systems are better than others. First, why should the state take such a deep interest in the poor? In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." If the state is to take broad new powers, and ensure that the People meet a certain quota, have a certain standard, why do we have a Constitution? Then going on that line of thought, how can both you and Sullivan, in one breath, both use the Constitution for your side (condemning the South), and, when it is more practical for you, completely ignores it? It seems to be that you would trample over the Constitution by issuing the Federal Government, and indeed only the Imperial Presidency, with such powers that the Founders would never have envisioned, and would bring them to tears and fury!
The Federal government has no, and I repeat No authority to expand its power in such a way; I know that you sincerely believe it will help the poor, but in the end, they will be enslaved, and this nation will falter from liberty.
Pre-flat tax, tax rates were at 15% for the lowest bracket, 20% for the middle, and 25% for the highest, if I remember right.
That, or 10%, 20%, 30%.
That, or 10%, 20%, 30%.
If that is the case, then I am, by and large, vindicated; the tax on the poor, at worst, is what it was before I came to office, when you, Mr. Terrance, were president... though you certainly couldn't lower taxes with that war you got us in. At best, the poor not only got a five percent tax cut, they have enjoyed rising wages, more jobs, and a generally better condition during these eight years than during your four (especially when they were the ones drafted).
I for one, am rather confused why Sullivan would lose all principle and join with the most militaristic president in recent memory; the Governor took such a firm stance against war, yet now is working in collusion with the same man that brought us into that horrific conflict.
I for one, am rather confused why Sullivan would lose all principle and join with the most militaristic president in recent memory; the Governor took such a firm stance against war, yet now is working in collusion with the same man that brought us into that horrific conflict.
Yes, low taxes are preferable, but by having a progressive system, those who can afford to pay more do so, meaning those who can't pay less to give the same overall tax income. Furthermore, while we have seen an increase in the standard of living, we have also seen a massive gulf open up in terms of equality thanks to the flat tax system - those at the top are earning ever more than those below them and it is becoming harder for those without money to succeed. That taxes were higher overall before you came to office was due to the circumstances war-time required; I would not favour raising the lowest tax bracket now.
I, without speaking for my allies on this side of the house, set little store by the constitution. I will accept that rules are important and the historical significance of the document makes it noteworthy, yet I feel that is flawed on many levels. The voting system we use is outdated, unfair and distorting, yet thanks to the constitution we cannot change it even though a majority of us would wish to do so. I have little confidence in the states to act in the name of justice and liberty, but, thanks to the constitution, the federal government has no power to end the suffering of so many.
Nor do I have the infinite respect you have for the founding fathers, aside from their great ability as statesmen. They were clever, but not Gods; we should make our own judgements on issues not take whatever they may have said as gospel. If I disagree with them, how is that different to me disagreeing with you?
That all means that when I construct my arguments, I do not do it by tradition or writ, but by logic and compassion - I do not quote the constitution, but human dignity when I rally against segregation; I do not quote the founding fathers, but compassion and reason when I defend the workers.
You also mistake me in my calls for more federal powers; these would be for the representatives of the people, in the house and the senate, not for some emperor or tyrant.
Federal aid to the poor is necessary because it would save so many from poverty, starvation and misery; you say that they will be enslaved to the state, but federal government would not stop them from enterprising, just save them from a terrible fate. Is not the enslavement to faceless corporations far worse?
I, without speaking for my allies on this side of the house, set little store by the constitution. I will accept that rules are important and the historical significance of the document makes it noteworthy, yet I feel that is flawed on many levels. The voting system we use is outdated, unfair and distorting, yet thanks to the constitution we cannot change it even though a majority of us would wish to do so. I have little confidence in the states to act in the name of justice and liberty, but, thanks to the constitution, the federal government has no power to end the suffering of so many.
Nor do I have the infinite respect you have for the founding fathers, aside from their great ability as statesmen. They were clever, but not Gods; we should make our own judgements on issues not take whatever they may have said as gospel. If I disagree with them, how is that different to me disagreeing with you?
That all means that when I construct my arguments, I do not do it by tradition or writ, but by logic and compassion - I do not quote the constitution, but human dignity when I rally against segregation; I do not quote the founding fathers, but compassion and reason when I defend the workers.
You also mistake me in my calls for more federal powers; these would be for the representatives of the people, in the house and the senate, not for some emperor or tyrant.
Federal aid to the poor is necessary because it would save so many from poverty, starvation and misery; you say that they will be enslaved to the state, but federal government would not stop them from enterprising, just save them from a terrible fate. Is not the enslavement to faceless corporations far worse?
Last edited:
I must abstain from this election. I can not support Terrance, the man who brought America into the Great War and instituted the draft on the working class. I am sad to see the Progressives join the militaristic Federals and Terrance. I agree more with the anti-military stance of the Republicans but can not support their regressive economic and social policies.
This income disparity is certainly not a major issue; if the poor are doing better, and it seems quite clear that they have over the course of my administration, why should you ruffle your feathers over the fact that the wealthiest have managed to make more money? Is not a great deal of that going in investments, in loans, into the market and further promoting growth? If the rise in economic output is any standard, then it appears it is true; generally, those who have gotten wealthier have invested more in our economy, bringing jobs to the poor, helping raise wages, promoting international competition, and generally improving our economic well being. The middle class has seen massive growth and prosperity, and, due to the expansion of jobs, the greater availability of goods, and the lower taxes now on them, the poor are living better now than at any time previous, even under Hayden, Harrison, and certainly Mr. Sherman's opponent, Terrance.
The Founder's were not 'Gods among Men' no, but looking at their words of warning, their divining of the future is quite accurate. I agree that we need to change our voting system; I voted for your father's reforms (well most of them), and the Constitution is not perfect; but would you really want the President to wield as much power as Harrison or any other president wanted? What if I had wielded great power? Certainly, there are some things we agree on, but I could very easily put into place a form of government you find abhorrent. What if the SNP had won the presidency, and the Constitution had been more lenient to the expansion of Federal power? Slavery could very well be alive today! I argue that Constitutionalism is logical, reasonable, and above all, what has made this nation great, and her people free.
While I am certain you believe these powers would only go to the Congress, it is likely not the case. Congress has the power to declare war, but have surrendered that authority to the President countless times; I don't even remember voting to go to war with Germany! The Presidency, since the time of Cameron, and especially since Harrison, as accumulated more and more power, at the expense of the States, the Courts, and the Congress.
You fear faceless corporations? Corporations that cater to the People? How can a business survive when it oppresses People? They don't have to work there, and they don't have to buy goods there. The same cannot be said for a State. Through laws and the military, leaving a country would be impossible, the arms of the people (the only weapon against tyrants) seized, and a tyranny can be established; we have seen that, but I ahve never seen a corporation, without governmental approval, take control over a populace and maintain that control for any length of time.
The Founder's were not 'Gods among Men' no, but looking at their words of warning, their divining of the future is quite accurate. I agree that we need to change our voting system; I voted for your father's reforms (well most of them), and the Constitution is not perfect; but would you really want the President to wield as much power as Harrison or any other president wanted? What if I had wielded great power? Certainly, there are some things we agree on, but I could very easily put into place a form of government you find abhorrent. What if the SNP had won the presidency, and the Constitution had been more lenient to the expansion of Federal power? Slavery could very well be alive today! I argue that Constitutionalism is logical, reasonable, and above all, what has made this nation great, and her people free.
While I am certain you believe these powers would only go to the Congress, it is likely not the case. Congress has the power to declare war, but have surrendered that authority to the President countless times; I don't even remember voting to go to war with Germany! The Presidency, since the time of Cameron, and especially since Harrison, as accumulated more and more power, at the expense of the States, the Courts, and the Congress.
You fear faceless corporations? Corporations that cater to the People? How can a business survive when it oppresses People? They don't have to work there, and they don't have to buy goods there. The same cannot be said for a State. Through laws and the military, leaving a country would be impossible, the arms of the people (the only weapon against tyrants) seized, and a tyranny can be established; we have seen that, but I ahve never seen a corporation, without governmental approval, take control over a populace and maintain that control for any length of time.
The simplest argument against inequality I can think of is its effects on social mobility. The more we the rich earn in comparison to the poor, the easier it is for the rich to remain on top of the political, social and economic ladders, because they have more funds, regardless of ability, to ensure they stay there. This means that we don't end up with the best the country can offer at the helm, but what passes in a hundred (or so) year old country for an aristocracy. This system leads to inefficiency and undermines our country's capacity to compete overseas, as monopolies stifle internal competition and a perpetual ability of the rich to control the poor.
You question my fear of faceless corporations, but to me there is a logical inconsistency between the way a business makes money and the job of the state. For a company profit is key and the methods by which they make money are not of their concern; once they reach the size of many of our industrial giants people do have little choice - in many industries there is a duopoly where two companies in competition (or sometimes collusion) control a market so any semblance of choice is erased; business models that rely on infrastructure, like utilities, rarely have any competition whatsoever. The state by contrast is there to serve its tax payers by providing services and protection. This job, especially in key sectors like defence, education and social security (and I would argue healthcare too), cannot be responsibly provided by the private sector because their outcome isn't the generation of money.
I fear you have mistaken my contempt of the constitution in its present form for some anarchic system without rules. My argument was that we should not base our justifications on dead men or their writings, and I apologise for not being clear enough. You are right that we need rules, but the rules under which we live are not the correct ones; for example, it is my opinion federal government should have more say in the affairs of each state. Me and my father may be annoyed at the system, but that does not mean we will not work inside it to reform it.
Finally, on the powers of the presidency, I think you underestimate the power of congress - congress has the power to block a president's legislative agenda and has to approve all actions of the state. You may not remember voting on a declaration of war, but congress certainly approved the alliances with the United Kingdom and France, knowing they meant war was certain.
You question my fear of faceless corporations, but to me there is a logical inconsistency between the way a business makes money and the job of the state. For a company profit is key and the methods by which they make money are not of their concern; once they reach the size of many of our industrial giants people do have little choice - in many industries there is a duopoly where two companies in competition (or sometimes collusion) control a market so any semblance of choice is erased; business models that rely on infrastructure, like utilities, rarely have any competition whatsoever. The state by contrast is there to serve its tax payers by providing services and protection. This job, especially in key sectors like defence, education and social security (and I would argue healthcare too), cannot be responsibly provided by the private sector because their outcome isn't the generation of money.
I fear you have mistaken my contempt of the constitution in its present form for some anarchic system without rules. My argument was that we should not base our justifications on dead men or their writings, and I apologise for not being clear enough. You are right that we need rules, but the rules under which we live are not the correct ones; for example, it is my opinion federal government should have more say in the affairs of each state. Me and my father may be annoyed at the system, but that does not mean we will not work inside it to reform it.
Finally, on the powers of the presidency, I think you underestimate the power of congress - congress has the power to block a president's legislative agenda and has to approve all actions of the state. You may not remember voting on a declaration of war, but congress certainly approved the alliances with the United Kingdom and France, knowing they meant war was certain.
I shall bring us into no wars. Fighting the Great War, and the draft to make that possible was a necessary evil, however such an evil does not exist today, and if elected I guarantee 4 years of peace.
With all due respect, it is not wholly your decision that we enter no wars; it is foolish to promise something you cannot deliver.
I'm happy to see that you won't start any more wars, but the main issue is, will you involve the United States in any ongoing or upcoming wars? Your track record for avoiding those is rather abysmal.
One war is hardly an abysmal track record, it's the same number of wars that your party has got us in, and they actually started that one, yet I wouldn't accuse it of having an abysmal track record. Besides which if we had not fought in the Great War the situation of the world, and by extension ourselves, would be many times worse than it is now.
((Also, it means in this timeline the US didn't turn up late for both World Wars.
))
((Also, it means in this timeline the US didn't turn up late for both World Wars.
))
{Taggarman runs to the voting booth, and then back home}
Republican
(I am still spying around here a bit, but I have to admit I am intimidated by the more recent long debates)
Republican
(I am still spying around here a bit, but I have to admit I am intimidated by the more recent long debates)
I believe you are mistaken, Mr. Terrance; Callahan (a Democrat, which coalitions with you, or perhaps absorbed is a better term), Harrison (a Federal), and you all brought us to war; in the same time, the Republicans or Conservatives fought only one, under Carr, who arguably was out of step with a large portion of the party. Furthermore, Carr received authorization to go to war from Congress, whereas you did not; on that matter, you were lucky you didn't get impeached.
What makes it abysmal is the horrible loss of life, not only on our side, but the millions of others who were slaughtered or displaced; surely you cannot justify that! There are still conflicts raging in Europe because of the Great War. I was under your Party, and that of your allies, that the seeds for this war was planted in the 1860's, and from that point on, the Republicans argued against an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy; and as much as you like to say otherwise, your 'war for democracy' was nothing more than an attempt to force our ideals, and the ideals of our allies, on our enemies.
((I left the Whigs out because the Federals and Republicans both draw influence from them, and the Civil War was eveyone's fault.))
What makes it abysmal is the horrible loss of life, not only on our side, but the millions of others who were slaughtered or displaced; surely you cannot justify that! There are still conflicts raging in Europe because of the Great War. I was under your Party, and that of your allies, that the seeds for this war was planted in the 1860's, and from that point on, the Republicans argued against an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy; and as much as you like to say otherwise, your 'war for democracy' was nothing more than an attempt to force our ideals, and the ideals of our allies, on our enemies.
((I left the Whigs out because the Federals and Republicans both draw influence from them, and the Civil War was eveyone's fault.))
I didn't get impeached because I did nothing worthy of impeachment, Congress gave authority to enter an alliance which would be honoured. The aggressors in the Great War were the powers lead by Germany, that sought to invade France, Italy, Britain and in the case of Chile cement hegemony over South America, which I should point out has remained peaceful in the war's aftermath. The war was fought not primarily to force our ideals onto others, but to protect the fellow democracies and our allies of France and Italy whom were facing annihilation from Germany and Austria-Hungary respectively. However once the old leaders of these nations had proven their intentions to do this, they signed the warrant for their replacement, which it was our duty to execute. Then it was hoped we could build in their places democratic states with national self-determination where freedom could prosper.
May I also point out Mr Jarvis that the situation in Europe today would likely be a lot less bloody if you hadn't caused our retreat from the world stage and torpedoed efforts at a League of Nations. Though I don't claim all would be perfect.
May I also point out Mr Jarvis that the situation in Europe today would likely be a lot less bloody if you hadn't caused our retreat from the world stage and torpedoed efforts at a League of Nations. Though I don't claim all would be perfect.
They did not vote for war, which is required to go to war. The same argument, that Germany and Austria were under risk of getting destroyed, is valid when used against the United States and United Kingdom. It seems that almost every person who championed the war said we should force democracy on the Germans and Russians and Austrians... Russia fell to civil war before anything could happen, and Germany is in a civil war. But I suppose my argument will not be taken seriously, as the victor is free to distort history as needed to justify their reasons for war.
May I also point out, Mr. Terrance, that we would still be in Europe, dieing in Germany, in Russia, in Balkans, if we followed your course, and then we would, without a doubt, be an imperialist nation, policing other nations. Are you in favour of policing Europe?
Also note, that I had more control over the Chilean peace treaty than the European one...
May I also point out, Mr. Terrance, that we would still be in Europe, dieing in Germany, in Russia, in Balkans, if we followed your course, and then we would, without a doubt, be an imperialist nation, policing other nations. Are you in favour of policing Europe?
Also note, that I had more control over the Chilean peace treaty than the European one...
Last edited:
There is a difference between initiation of conflict and justice, the Entente I know, would not have struck first at the enemy, however when it finds itself forced to bear a loss of life so great as that caused by the invasion is it not right that the cause of such be removed? There is a significant difference do you not agree between a man who murders in cold blood, and one who kills in self defence as someone attempts to murder him? Democracy was to be replacement for the absolute monarchies which caused this conflict, for it is much harder to declare war when you have to do so with the will of the people, as opposed to just your words and command. In addition to the valid moral reasoning.
Besides which, the war is quite over. I don't intend to fight this election on what occurred eight years ago for that cannot be changed, I intend to fight this on the issues of today. Specifically the rising inequality in our nation, and its increasing dependence on unsustainable and insufficiently regulated forms of growth.
Besides which, the war is quite over. I don't intend to fight this election on what occurred eight years ago for that cannot be changed, I intend to fight this on the issues of today. Specifically the rising inequality in our nation, and its increasing dependence on unsustainable and insufficiently regulated forms of growth.
My, how things have changed since 1912... Referring to Terrance as an Emperor, then, only twelve years later, moving away from his principled, if misguided, view, into one political of opportunism. If he wants to support the man who lead us to war in Europe, and apparently, by his own admission, has been weak on economic issues, then fine, but this coalition, which seems bound to fail, is already built on a weak, divided foundation.
I am certain he would like to believe the placating assurances that Terrance has given him, but if France or Britain call us to war, will he heed that call, just as he did in 1913? If he does, he breaks his promise to Americans not to get us in a war we would be waging needlessly, and would never be able to fulfill his economic and social goals. If he doesn't, then he challenges the legitimacy of joining the Great War a dozen years ago.