A Declaration of Policy to the Electorate

[migrendel]

     With the announcement of the Democratic presidential nominee imminent, I would like to explain to the voters who are undecided why I am the correct choice for the nomination, and to ask you to cast your ballot for me. The way I shall do this is by announcing my stand on issues of concern to our nation today.
     The first part of my speech shall have to do with foreign affairs. I opposed the war in Iraq, because I believe it was fruit from a poisonous tree. What that tree stood for was forcing American ways on nations around the globe, in many cases distinctly unsuitably. I make no apologies for this, because I believe the killing of civilians shameless, and I further believe that this paradigm of foreign policy will stir utter resentment around the globe. To remedy the situation, I propose the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. In addition, I support Palestinian statehood, and support cancelling foreign aid to Israel and recalling our ambassador until they agree to a fair and free Palestine. We must use our economic power to hold this criminal state accountable. However, I would support a dramatic increase in foreign aid spending, at which point it will ultimately reach between 15% and 20% of our national budget. I support a preliminary defense cut of 50% over five years, and might be supportive of future reduction if necessary. The centerpiece of my defense policy will be unilateral disarmament. I support ending the nuclear freeze by starting the thaw ourselves. If a nuclear attack should occur before disarmament occurs, I will adhere firmly to a strategy of no first usage. I also intend to completely withdraw the US from NATO.
     The next part of my speech will deal with the economy and healthcare. I support tax increases, with a new tax graduation from 38% to 78%. I will include both the wealthy and the middle class in my tax increases. However, incomes under $15,000 will be tax exempt. You may wonder what I intend to do with our new bounty of money. It will be used to fund the most comprehensive system of social welfare anywhere in the world. I will consolidate Medicare and Medicaid, and nationalize all health care management and health insurance companies to form a national health service, which will provide comprehensive preventitive care, treatment for illnesses, and dental care. I will in addition fund a national system of pensions which will be payable monthly to all citizens whose incomes are recorded below a certain point. This will guarantee a minimum income for all citizens. I will also defend the current safety net in the interim by actively seeking repeal and opposing reauthorization of the Welfare Reform Act, which will starve citizens at the hands of government parsimony. But perhaps the major overhaul of the economy will be the nationalization of all major concerns. I support, for the record, the nationalization of healthcare, utilities, telecommunications, air transport, steel, mining, oil, shipbuilding, railways, banking, and housing. I do need to elaborate on housing however. My plan would end the housing shortage using government funding. If a person wishes to sell their house, they would have to register it with a local housing authority. The authority, based upon demand and price impact, would evaluate whether the property would be sold. If a person is in need of housing, they could file papers with the authority, and after evaluation, be granted a property in which to live in from those registered. The government would use its power of eminent domain to seize a registered property based upon its fair market value. This will allow for housing to be sold and people to be housed. Finally, on issues of trade, I support enforcing a minimum wage of $6.65 for all contracts made for labor abroad from domestic companies, and I will support a domestic minimum wage of $15.45 to be indexed for inflation by the Secretary of Labor.
     The last section of my speech will be devoted to questions of domestic policy. I will defend reproductive rights throughout the pregnancy, support the availability of condoms and certain pharmaceuticals in schools, and will repeal the Hyde Amendment to force my national health plan to pay for abortion. I will defend the rights of individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, and will support legalized marriages for these people, equal rights in all aspects of society, and will defend the Supreme Court's ruling decriminalizing sodomy. I support the continuance of affirmative action based on race, and would allow for hiring and promotion quotas in certain federal and private jobs, to be determined by the EEOC. I support the right of people to come to this country, and for them to speak their native language, and for the government to accomodate them. I support the complete abolition of capital punishment. I will also support the repeal of sentencing guidelines and will push to lower criminal sentences and defend the exclusionary rule. I oppose an amendment which would erode the separation of church and state by making school prayer constitutional. I would in addition oppose the Pledge of Allegiance, and would refuse to fund all religious based community services and social welfare programs. I support protecting the environment, by meansof opposing Arctic drilling and the Bush Administration's forest thinning proposal, and would support a broad-based regulatory expansion of air and water quality and emissions rules.
      I would be glad to answer any questions about issues I didn't address, but I will conclude by encouraging a vote for me and saying it's on to the nomination and a Democratic victory.

[7,052,770]

Nym90, please write your own stance.

If he does not write one by tomorrow, I will write one in his place.
We have several agreements and several disagreements.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

CNN: What's your opinion on Congressman Migredel's declaration of policy?

Al Realpolitik: Hmm... well I tend to agree with most of his positions on the economy and Congressman Migredel's clairity on social issues is, as allways, admirable...

CNN: Do you intend to endorse him?

Al Realpolitik: I don't get what you mean...

CNN: I mean do you inten...

Al Realpolitik: I'm worried about some anti-labor statements he has made in the past...

CNN: Do you...

Al Realpolitik: ...and I would like some of that cleared up but...

CNN: Do...

Al Realpolitik: although I remain pledged to Senator Nym90's bid, if Congressman Migrendel does win our primary I would endorse him for the general.
But not the primary.

CNN: What abo...

Al Realpolitik: That will be all.

[migrendel]

I would like to tell RealPolitik exactly how I stand on labor. I do think that labor unions are counterproductive because they create demand and prevent the natural adjustment of the money supply, and I feel they marginalize individual worker's voices in favor of a broad ethos, but I would not act to penalize them. I would allow them to partially control private businesses if a majority employee vote favors such control, and I would act to repeal Taft-Hartley, because that law is just mean-spirited. While I am not totally comfortable with labor, I am also not totally comfortable with completely removing its voice from the process.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Nym90, please write your own stance.

If he does not write one by tomorrow, I will write one in his place.
We have several agreements and several disagreements.

Harry, Nym90 is back. He and I were out of town from 12:30a Monday until 11:30p Thursday.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's o.k then. If you win the nomination I will endorse you and not an independent.

[migrendel]

I also support reducing the work week to 35 hours, and will institute a wage control system based upon statistical data to determine comparable worth. This system will use information to compare the average wages (considering the variables of education, seniority, etc.) of occupations based upon the male/female ration within the occupation. I will then instruct the Secretary of Labor to modify the standard wages of an individual to remedy the disparity, if supported by empirical evidence.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Huh! Your declaration would be very radical even in Finland!

[Huckleberry Finn]

In fact you are so radical that there is NO significant political party in Finland, which could agree your purpose of nationalization. Only very small Communist Party (only 1 percent of vote) would support your declaration! Finnish Socialist abandoned that policy far time ago and moderate wing of Communist Party (Now as Left-Alliance) did so in 80's!!

[migrendel]

I suppose the Finnish socialists just don't have the fortitude to pursue it. They know it's the right thing, they just won't back it because it's not convenient.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Migrendel. I don't think so.  Nationalization would lead to collapse of economy and Finnish socialists in Left Alliance know that. (Maybe there is few left, who didn't realise that yet.) In other hand Social Democrat Party hasn't have real intrest about nationalization since 40's. They support free market economy (and so does Left Alliance) with strong social security and strong trade unions. In other hand also centrist and rightwing parties support welfare state with less taxes and transfer of incomes of cource. It's also interesting that most whitecollar unions is led by members of conservative National Coalition Party! Gustaf: How that thing is in Sweden?

Comments about that also from others!

[Gustaf]

Migrendel. I don't think so.  Nationalization would lead to collapse of economy and Finnish socialists in Left Alliance know that. (Maybe there is few left, who didn't realise that yet.) In other hand Social Democrat Party hasn't have real intrest about nationalization since 40's. They support free market economy (and so does Left Alliance) with strong social security and strong trade unions. In other hand also centrist and rightwing parties support welfare state with less taxes and transfer of incomes of cource. It's also interesting that most whitecollar unions is led by members of conservative National Coalition Party! Gustaf: How that thing is in Sweden?

Comments about that also from others!

In Sweden, all unions are led by members of the SAP, Labour Party, even SACO, the academics organisation, lawyers, doctors, etc. is led by a Social Democrat.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Well. Sweden you have almost singlepartysystem.

In Finland Social Democrats got only about 24,5 percent of vote in last election and this is their normal support in the long period. Results of other parties: Centrists: 24,7 %, Conservatives: 18,6%, Left Alliance 9,9%, Greens 8,0%, Christian Democrats 5,3%, and Swedish People Party 4,6% (backing by Swedish speaking minority) Populists 1,6%
 
 

[Huckleberry Finn]

In other hand there is strong conservative business wing in Finnish National Coalition Party, which support  reduction of labour market's regulation.  

[Huckleberry Finn]

Hey! I Am Junior Member! At last!

[Gustaf]

In other hand there is strong conservative business wing in Finnish National Coalition Party, which support  reduction of labour market's regulation.  

Yes, we have that in Sweden as well. But after the recent referendum campaign and bussiness scandals, the employer's organisation, SN, has become a laughing stock. They ran the worse election campaign in world history, I believe.

[migrendel]

I don't recall any economy that fell apart because of nationalization. One is tempted to say the Soviet Union, but I remind those people that the standard of living dramatically after the fall of the Czar and Kerensky, and since the fall, deprivation has increased and industrial productivity has declined. I suppose much of the resistance to nationalization is a fear of change, but the economy isn't working as it stands. We can only stop the problems that exist by trying new solutions, so I would advise those who denounce Socialism to either help us remake the economy, or put up with unemployment, unfair trade practices, and deprivation.

[Gustaf]

I don't recall any economy that fell apart because of nationalization. One is tempted to say the Soviet Union, but I remind those people that the standard of living dramatically after the fall of the Czar and Kerensky, and since the fall, deprivation has increased and industrial productivity has declined. I suppose much of the resistance to nationalization is a fear of change, but the economy isn't working as it stands. We can only stop the problems that exist by trying new solutions, so I would advise those who denounce Socialism to either help us remake the economy, or put up with unemployment, unfair trade practices, and deprivation.

Russia was being modernized under the Czar and living standards were on the rise. Lenin's economic policy crippled the Soviet Union, and he had to allow private enterprises again (NEC, New Economic Policy). Stalin went back to the old theory and forced a drastic reform of Russia which led to the death of millions.

France in the 80s, is, I believe, an example of a country that suffered severly after trying to nationalize the bank system. But economies seldom fall apart, since you stop well before things get that far. But successfull nationalisation is hard to find examples of.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sweden is usually thought of as a socialist country, and as far as I'm aware the SAP never attempted to nationalize everything that moved.

I happen to think that certain industries (eg. mining and extraction) should be "co-operatized", as co-operatives:

a) work well
b) are more socialist than mass nationalization

[Gustaf]

Sweden is usually thought of as a socialist country, and as far as I'm aware the SAP never attempted to nationalize everything that moved.

I happen to think that certain industries (eg. mining and extraction) should be "co-operatized", as co-operatives:

a) work well
b) are more socialist than mass nationalization

Well, the concept of "löntagarfonder", "employeefunds" caused a heated debate in Sweden in the 70s and 80s, I believe it was. The idea was that part of employer's wages would be invested into the companies they worked for, thus gradually putting all private enterprises under union control. It was introduced, but later abolished. The issue revived the Swedish right and hurt the left in many elections. Nowadays, it's unthinkable for the SAP to propose something like that, but the socialists still argue for such things.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I don't recall any economy that fell apart because of nationalization. One is tempted to say the Soviet Union, but I remind those people that the standard of living dramatically after the fall of the Czar and Kerensky, and since the fall, deprivation has increased and industrial productivity has declined. I suppose much of the resistance to nationalization is a fear of change, but the economy isn't working as it stands. We can only stop the problems that exist by trying new solutions, so I would advise those who denounce Socialism to either help us remake the economy, or put up with unemployment, unfair trade practices, and deprivation.

Small countries like Finland and Sweden are extremely dependent on worldeconomy.
Nationalization would hurt really much our export business. Who would buy our produces anymore? And majority holding of biggest companies is owned by foreigners and companies' do their business more and more in foreigcountries. Nationalizatrion would lead the real collapse!

Even small  Communist Party of Finland doesn't demand nationalization!!!

Nationalization would be wrong economypolicy, but it's also morally wrong. Richpeople have right their fortune and many shareholders are just ordinary people.

As political issue nationalization is dead.

[migrendel]

First of all, injecting a moral element into this debate is unnecessary, despite the fact that many conceptualize nationalization as indeed the moral response. They see redistributing moribund wealth as the right thing to do.
Also, nationalization would help importing-exporting. Rather than having a litany of companies fighting over a single export market, a single company would lend the nation more economic clout by making the company much more powerful because of its heightened level of control over an economic sector.

[Huckleberry Finn]

No migrendel. It doesn't work. Man is greedy and selfish. Without selfinterest there would be very little (if any) economical growth.

[migrendel]

If man is greedy and selfish, let us purge our hearts of avarice.

[Gustaf]

If man is greedy and selfish, let us purge our hearts of avarice.

Avarice...another complicated Latin word from Migrendel then... (means greed btw....)

"Pecunia avaritiam non sanat"