|
QuoProQuid posted:That just sets the stage for a Nixon would win every state with three people cracking the 1960 Democratic vote.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Corek posted:Nixon would win every state with three people cracking the 1960 Democratic vote. He does have a secret plan to win in Vietnam...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Also C.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
When do we get to name the awesomely named and Metrodome namesake Hubert H. Humphrey to be our VP?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
this thread is intentionally working against lbj. it makes me so angry. i'm shaking
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
People in this thread are some yellow cowards. By drat we are twice the man RFK is. Anybody who chances to piss next to us at the urinal has to see that!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:this thread is intentionally working against lbj. it makes me so angry. i'm shaking I'm getting memories of the Crete LP already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:This brings me to the thought: If we are going to extra-judicially assassinate anybody there is an un-charismatic toad named Nixon that hasn't ever done anything to convince me not to kill him. Whoa, back off. That guy is out of politics - he even said we won't have him to kick around anymore. We can't just go out and kill some old retiree, now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
1) Who will investigate the Kennedy assassination? D. Robert Kennedy's Justice Department will be uniquely motivated to investigate. By my count this was a nail-biting 20 to 19 vote in favor of D over C November 29, 1963  You inform Robert Kennedy that he is now in charge of investigating his brother’s assassination. You know that the problem of who is going to investigate the assassination, and the assassin’s murder, has to be addressed. The atmosphere is poisonous and has to be cleared - Russia is not immune, Cuba is not immune, Texas is not immune, and even the new President is not immune. Every day the newspapers release fresh reports of Oswald’s connection to two Communist countries. And it wasn’t just the reaction here to be mindful of. If the Russians thought that US opinion was going to turn harshly against them soon, it might provoke them into hostile action now. Jack Ruby’s single shot had turned the outrage of a nation into skepticism and doubt. The House Un-American Activities Committee is preparing to launch its own investigation. You want to let Texas handle the investigation, your loyalty to the state that propelled you to power is too great to deny. But the newspapers are calling for a national investigation and the liberals are already preparing to whine about any FBI involvement. A national committee could be formed, staffed with unimpeachably impartial men. You almost draft an executive order creating one. But then you have a moment of machiavellian insight. You punch the phone line to your secretary. “Get Robert Kennedy over here.” Never trust a man unless you’ve got his pecker in your pocket, you think to yourself as Robert sits down with you. Well I'm about to geld this Irish bastard. You explain your plan to him - put the Department of Justice in charge of the investigation into the former President’s assassination. Obviously then, the FBI will be involved but the Attorney General will have final authority, not Hoover. Additionally, he can bring the full weight of his prodigiously talented staff to bear on solving the lingering questions. You tell him that his investigation, alone in all the government, will be seen as unimpeachable by the public. For a long moment Robert has nothing to say, he just stares as if trying to compass you. Then he demurs, citing the family responsibilities he has suddenly come to bear. “In the old days in Texas, if a man got killed all his kin would rally up a posse and chase down the murderer. That wasn’t just for revenge, it was to settle a score and put the community at ease. The murderer’s dead but our nation isn’t at ease. This is not for me, this is for your country.” Robert looks you dead in the eyes. “I’m going to need your full support on this - I can’t get stonewalled later on,” he says. “Course not,” you respond. You work out some of the details for about half an hour before rising and shaking his hand. After Robert leaves, you sign Executive Order No. 11130, instructing for the full cooperation of all government agencies with the “Special Department of Justice Investigation on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” You can only hope he doesn’t someday turn that posse on you. November 30, 1963 Much of your accomplishment thus far in these trying few days has been meaningful but ultimately symbolic. You kept Kennedy’s men around despite their protests to maintain continuity and surprised the nation with an eloquent speech. Now you have to handle the stalemate that exists between the legislature and the executive branch. You had stopped the Mundt bill, but that had been a minor thing and the former President’s very recent death had worked in your favor. The Senate has stood as an impregnable dam against social change for decades - it resisted Roosevelt in 1938 and Truman in 1948. Both times the President had directly challenged legislators from his own party and failed. It was you who had made the Senate work under Eisenhower, and that was only through a shrewd ability for parliamentary procedure. But your exile to the Vice-Presidency had reversed all of that. After three years of Kennedy governance, the southern Democrat and conservative Republican coalition seemed stronger than ever. Kennedy’s foreign policy had been inspired - the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, the nuclear test ban treaty, his skillful maneuvering during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But his domestic agenda was completely stalled. He had attempted to pass health insurance for the elderly, called Medicare, but it had been stalled for years. He tried to pass education reform that would provide federal aid for student loans, but it had failed almost entirely. Even one of his few successful programs which provided aid to depressed areas was declined annual reauthorization and thus eliminated. Civil rights was entirely caught up in interminable committee hearings. A tax bill Kennedy had considered essential to restarting the economy, supported by the consensus of leading liberal economists like John Kenneth Galbraith, was caught as well. This tax reform bill would significantly reduce personal income taxes and slightly reduce corporate tax rates. But fiscal conservatives are revolting at the prospective loss of revenue. And the budget needs to be finalized by January 20th - less than two months away. That includes all the funding for social programs or tax bills you plan on introducing for 1964, unless they include their own revenue-raising measures. There might be a little flexibility at the end, but there won’t be much. Certainly not enough for massive tax reform. The main reason for the tax reform bill's current glacial pace is one man: Harry Byrd, chair of the Senate Finance Committee. You know him well, he had been one of your mentors in the Senate. Byrd is an ardent fiscal conservative, and is keeping the tax bill tied up in his committee until he reviews the budget. Currently the budget sits at $101.5 billion, and that's after substantial cuts. Your agency heads assure you no more reduction is possible. But Harry Byrd is adamantly opposed to a budget over $100 billion, considering it his legacy to leave a nation where economy and thrift are valued. He won’t let out a critical tax reform bill that most of your economists and advisors agree will jump-start the economy. 1) How do you approach Harry Byrd in regards to the tax reform bill? A. Undermine Byrd on the Senate committee, try to get the tax reform bill through by going around him. B. Cooperate with Byrd by cutting the budget below $100 billion. C. The tax bill is costly and will cut government revenue, Byrd is right to oppose it. Drop the issue entirely.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
A. Byrd is being unreasonable, we've made significant cuts already, and mentor or no we have to put him in his place. Plus, we have to show the legislature that the office of the President is not going to cower at their every move just because we're in a time of turmoil. Ideally undermine Byrd by yelling at him with your dick out. Still waiting for the good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
B but we drop the tax cuts for top earners and businesses in favor of a cut for the bottom brackets to win Byrd over
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
overdesigned posted:A. Byrd is being unreasonable, we've made significant cuts already, and mentor or no we have to put him in his place. Plus, we have to show the legislature that the office of the President is not going to cower at their every move just because we're in a time of turmoil. A. as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
C. There's no reason to cut taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
B No point angering our mentor. We can find 5 billion in savings somehow. If we can get him onside, we can use him later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Let's B on Byrd's side for this one. If we bully everyone, we are going to end up less effective when it counts. Make a small concession now and we will be able to rely on Byrd in the future. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 12:55 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
D Use Kennedy's recent death as a pushing point. Inform Byrd we need solidarity in this time of crisis to show the communists we're not weak and are capable of continuing on as before if not even stronger! (if we're doing this we might as well do it like they did in real life and milk that man's corpse for everything it is worth.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
C There is no reason to undermine Byrd as it would undercut a potentially valuable ally in the future, something that may be needed if RFK only mimics his gelding. Byrd may also be willing to embrace a more expansive domestic spending programme once the current crisis is sorted if federal revenue is robust or see any short-term annual shortfall as temporary under our future advisement. We inherited a strong economy from JFK (not seeing any reason for the posts to change this). The recession that consumed the US economy in 1960 appears to have passed. There is strong corporate profits, the stock market has reclaimed (most) of its losses, and currently leaves the federal government with a project budget surplus for the remainder of Kennedy's term. The most worrisome economic feature is an unemployment rate that seems set to remain above 5%, even with continued growth in numerous sectors. More money in the pocket allows the White House to potentially drive up employment, continue to pursue policies of funding home building and slum eradication (a legacy of the New Deal and continuing JFK's own policies), and not worry about funding for unemployment aid or vocational training. If we can translate the surplus into practical benefits for the Silent Majority (a phrase I think we should steal before some Californian populist grabs hold of it), we can do the one thing that eluded JFK since 1961: extend the benefits of the strong economy to working men and women across the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Valinon posted:C Agreed. C. Let's not get into some see-saw of tax-cuts and spending cuts. We can consider a less expensive tax cut but for now we're doing things with that money, good things for America. If we've already reduced the budget to 'we can't possibly cut more' then we've already cut too far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
A. I'm the one in charge here. For those who haven't read Caro, what did LBJ do with all these? I don't know his opinion on taxes and wheat for Russians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
B It's important to not let our first real act as president to be to concede to congress, but it'a also important to remember that this is just the start of our domestic agenda. We could start making enemies now, but when people really start trying to gently caress us up they'll be prepared for us. So let's make friends for now, so that we can wave our dicks in their face later and they won't know what to do. Dropping the tax issue here would also lose a lot of confidence in us to keep the Kennedy legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
don Jaime posted:A. I'm the one in charge here. On tax reform: LBJ was persuaded by the arguments of his advisers to aggressively endorse tax reform. He thought its passage would signify his effectiveness as a leader and he worked behind the scenes to pacify Byrd. Johnson agreed to a $97.9 billion budget to pacify conservative opposition and, in return, Byrd let tax reform slide through Congress. As a general rule, no agency ever wants its budget cut and will always claim that they have reached their limit. Though I am not endorsing unilateral cuts, it's a good idea not to take the statements of our agency heads at face value. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 14:31 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Keep in mind that while we are a caretaker of JFK's legacy, we need to build a Johnson record of our own if we want the nomination for 64, otherwise it'll be "That was a heck of a job you did keeping that seat warm Johnson, but now is time to put a Kennedy back in charge." Voting C. We can turn dropping the issue into an IOU to cash in on later when passing domestic items.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Given that RFK is on the verge of a mental breakdown and spends most of his days driving aimlessly in the rain with his hood down, I don't think we have to worry about a challenge in 1964. Giving Kennedy control of the investigation was a mistake, one which will probably come to roost in 1968, but our nomination is probably secured in the meanwhile. No one is going to challenge the sitting President.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
B I have always voted to help build future bridges. You can't get good results by silently dropping an issue and hoping later that everybody believes you when you tell them they owe you one. Let's make drat sure everybody is good and certain what hands they are eating out of. Plus anybody we consider to be a mentor can't be all bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
B Generate some goodwill in congress from conservatives by agreeing to budget cuts which can be called back on later when needing to push through civil rights reform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
I can't decide on B or C, so D. Show someone our massive wang already
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:I can't decide on B or C, so Gotta save that one for when we really gently caress up and need a quick Anthony Wiener Scandal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
C. Simply because of the lack of better alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:I can't decide on B or C, so A, because it is at least a metaphorical wang showing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
A
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
A. Weakness is not what we need to exhibit right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
A If we're not showing Jumbo to the entire Senate on the floor while doing this, we're already hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
B, but make sure he knows he owes us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
B. What's a couple billion more or less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
A, gently caress Byrd
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
C, gently caress tax cuts forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Can we raise the taxes instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
fronz posted:Can we raise the taxes instead? D, 100% top marginal tax rate and announce full communism in a live televised speech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:D, 100% top marginal tax rate and announce full communism in a live televised speech. I change my vote from C to D. Full communism now directed by the first Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of America, LBJ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
C
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:45
|
|