Iowa Congressional Election Platform
•
by Kasius
Greetings, Iowans! I am Kasius Loren, and I am here to inform you of my intention to run for Congress as a member of the Workers' Party. It's going to be one hell of a ride, so let's get started.
I am currently a platoon commander in the National Guard, Second Division. I will say that I have not been here for long, but I will also say that I an individual who considers himself a fast learner. And I -have- learned quite a bit since I have arrived here. The first thing that I learned was that there are a lot of problems. So I took to thinking of ways to fix those problems, like just about everybody has done. The reason I am running for office is because I believe it is time for a completely new approach. And here is that approach:
War With PEACE
Frankly, it's a huge mistake. Overconfidence in our own strength and underestimation of PEACE's power has led to a war that while, successful for a very short while, has lost absolutely all of its gain. The American military can do amazing things, but the lack of planning for the war has prevented us from having access to the resources that we need to actually do those things. Waves of soldiers alone will not win the war. Those soldiers need weapons.
But despite the high cost of weapons right now, there is a way to provide weapons and, at the same time, create new jobs in a market that is literally dry of jobs for new citizens. The answer is a non-profit organization dedicated to creating weapons for eMerican soldiers. It will provide new jobs while providing weapons. It's a win-win situation.
In the end though, the war needs to be ended. It has no clear goal and no real justification. If fair peace terms cannot be achieved, then non-profit weapons production can help the process. But brute force is hardly ever the only viable option. Diplomacy needs to be exhausted.
Unemployment
As has already been discussed, the market is empty of jobs for new citizens. When citizens can't work, citizens can't eat. Companies are reluctant to hire new citizens, because frankly, they're an unreliable group of workers. It's a coin toss on whether or not they'll stay around for long. But a non-profit company run by the government can provide a mass of new jobs with good wages and at the same time create a more stable source of products in currently unstable markets. Weapons can be provided for soldiers who currently do not have them, and food can be made available for cheaper prices to new citizens who cannot always afford food.
Foreign Policy
Atlantis is a fantastic group of allies, but that's about where it should end. Atlantis is a pact of allies that just happened to work out, but we honestly probably went in too fast. Good relationships don't usually happen overnight. They have to be developed over time, and treaties can go along with them after complete trust is secured. The United States cannot afford to be forced into a war because of an alliance that was formed after just a couple weeks of friendly chat.
To accompany alliances, we need nonaggression pacts. War is too often seen as a completely valid option, when it shouldn't always be seen that way. War is a last resort that should be made available only after every other option has been exhausted. Nonaggression pacts act to make sure that good relationships don't end up dying at a moment's notice, and they increase the chance that diplomacy will be taken over outright war.
Conclusion
I cannot wait the election on the 25th. Like I said, this whole thing is going to be one hell of a ride, but it isn't going to even match the ride the entirety of the nation is taking right now. It's time for a new direction with new leadership, and I intend to do my absolute best to help make that a reality.
I look forward to your questions. You can comment on this article or send me a message personally. I'll answer as soon as I can, and hopefully, in a few days, I'll be answering all of your questions as a Congressman.
Happy holidays, and best of luck to you all!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Good luck Kasius and wonderful article!!!
GoBucks
As a platoon commander and officer in the world's largest party, I fully endorse Kasius. Good luck!
Good Luck!
War with Peace
Although I agree the war has been mismanaged, the justification of this war is the possibility of France re-claiming the Swiss. If we could be absolutely sure that not just France, but Peace, had no intentions of doing so, then I would be for backing out, but as we can not, I will stay for the war. If we sat down with Peace and came to some sort of an agreement, including in it the freedom of the Swiss, then I would be fine with backing out.
Unemployment
Do you really think that government organizations can end our woes alone? We would in no way have enough funds for this. First off, we would have to have many, many companies, to fix our unemployment problem. Second, who would be the ones the be in charge of these companies? They don't run themselves. Also, even though we own the companies, we still have to pay for the weapons, even if at a reduced price. What if we run out of money to buy these weapons with? How will we continue to support the jobs of all of those workers? And what happens when the war is over? We have a giant overstock of weapons, or we have to cut workers. I don't see this as a long-term answer. It would cause more problem than worth.
Foreign Policy
So, if we should not immediately "jump into the war" because our allies do, what should we jump for? We made a pact with these countries, and what kind of example will we be showing if we do not honor it? The United States of America WILL keep it promises. We will never get any respect from foreign nations if we do not respect them enough to honor a promise.
Conclusion
You too. 😃
Why would you end the war? The reason all the Atlantis countries got beaten back was that we all attacked at different dates and PEACE was able to pick us off one by one. If we all attack at once then we just steam roll PEACE.
Ronald Regan for Iowa
--War With PEACE--
As an alliance, we have had no problem taking away the independence and/or land of other nations. Ask the Danish, and I'm sure they'd like their independence as well.
--Unemployment--
Leaders of companies would be chosen by Congress or by Congressional committee.
Companies are not limited to ten workers. Like I said, there are companies with hundreds of workers, especially in Spain. The last company I worked for had sixty-some workers. Ten is not the limit.
You're acting like the companies would be giving their products away. The goal is to break even. Not everything will be paid for directly out of the government's pocket. Salaries would be paid for by income made from product sales. The only difference is that there isn't a goal to make a sum of cash for the owner at the end.
Whether weapons were to be created by private companies, as they are now, or by non-profit companies, in the end, the workers would lose their jobs when the war is over. The only difference is that with a non-profit company, they might actually have access to affordable weapons so that they might do some notable damage in the war. When the war is over, conversion is going to have to take place regardless of who is in charge of the companies. When it ends, new companies will be created to provide for jobs. You're basically saying that we should function under a peacetime economy during war.
--Foreign Relations--
I did not, at any point, say we should end Atlantis.
War with Peace
So, your not being very clear. Do you want independance or not?
Any yes, I would not be opposed to the Swedes giving them their country back as long as we have a treaty.
Unemployment
No, actually I'm not. We would have to spend tremendous amount of money to keep this cycle going. Not all money is always were you want it to be. You have to have enough money, iron, and demand to keep these going.
There is no point to all of these companies, if the very citizens it was meant to support all go unemployed eventually. You would have to split up the companies, into not just weapons. Even then, it is too expensive. Basically, I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is a ridiculous idea. Sometimes, some citizens are employed to make government weapons, and other times not? Wtf. This is too much money to spend for such a thing. If we spend that much gold, it should be on something that will help us 24/7.
Foreign relations
I never said that you said that...
I said that there is no debate to the fact we made a promise. A pact. That is something we can't afford to break.
--War with PEACE--
The point was that we would never think of going to war with Turkey to free Israel or Greece, nor would we go to war with Sweden to free Denmark, nor would we go to war with Norway to free Russia. The reason we have invaded France is because we believe it would be easy and should us as a military power. Switzerland is in no different a situation than Denmark, Israel, Greece, or Russia.
--Unemployment--
Weapons are needed. That is why we should spend money on weapons companies. The companies do not have to be completely dissolved when war is over. It's a lot easier to cut the number of workers. Those workers can then move on to other companies, such as food, an important industry that needs constant stability.
Currently, there are workers in private weapons companies. When the war ends, they'll go unemployed. If non-profit companies hire them, the same thing will happen. That doesn't mean they'll stay completely unemployed. They'll move onto other industries. I do believe that non-profit companies should not be limited to weapons. I just believe that the collection of more affordable weapons is the most important focus currently.
Remember what I have said about the limits on the number of workers. There are companies with literally hundreds of workers. If each business were to hire 250 workers, it would only cost us 200 gold to employ the entire United States. Raw materials gathering will increase that. In the end, 400 gold would be the max cost, probably less. And I honestly think that 2,500 is an overestimation, but that's completely debatable.
--Foreign Relations--
I agree. I think you just misunderstood what I was saying in my article. Atlantis is a good set of allies, but we should limit ourselves to it for now, and any expansion of it or any creation of separate agreements should take a lot of debate and be done through a much longer process.
War with Peace
As I see it, one of our main goals is to liberate other countries. If they form a resistance war, let them have it, so long as we can be confident they will be peaceful. If some countries would not give up their conquered territories, we might have a problem. However, with pressure coming from the rest of Atlantis, I'm sure they would eventually crack.
Unemployment
It wouldn't make too much of productivity, comparatively.
Instead of getting a bonus for 10 people. That's why almost all company owners cut down to around 10 employees, or the max in that area.
Really, the cost is whether or not you stock up on employees or not.
Foreign Relations
Then we are in agreement.
If you hoard employees into one big company, it will be extremely inefficient, but would cost less.
--War with PEACE--
I do not think that we have put any real effort into getting Sweden to release Denmark, nor have we put effort into getting Norway to release Russia. Turkey is part of PEACE, and we haven't even put effort into getting Greece and Israel restored. This is why I find it hard to believe that Switzerland is our real focus. If it were, I would not find it justified considering the state of Atlantis's own expansionist ambitions. We should focus on the independence of nations we control before we go after other nations.
--Unemployment--
It is true that productivity per product would go down, but like you said, it would cost a lot less. It would also produce much more in the end than would ten worker companies. That's why the Spanish have taken so much to large companies. They can produce a lot more. Even though profit per product decreases, the increase in total products leads to an increase in profit. It would be awesome if we could afford multiple companies with just ten workers, but I know we're both in agreement that that is completely out of reach right now.
War With Peace
I think, a small reason would be geographical location in this. But, I don't think that a country can actually liberate of of it's regions, unless Benn has a shiny button (had) that I am aware of. 😛 I think that they have to first collect the funds to start a resistance war, then the controlling country would have to allow them to win.
Unemployment
I'm still concerned about the fact that these workers will lose their jobs during peacetime. We would need not just a weapons company, but something such as gifts, or food. Otherwise, it would be a part-time solution.
Elections
Good luck.
--War With PEACE--
In other words, they probably wouldn't try unless their independence was guaranteed ahead of time, which I personally think should be done for Denmark and Russia. It's something that at least deserves discussion.
--Unemployment--
I do believe that more than just weapons companies should be set up. The main goal should be weapons during the war, but food, gifts, and moving tickets would also be good focuses. Food because it is the most important product, gifts because it will allow for us to increase the wellness of soldiers for much cheaper prices, and moving tickets because we could move people to Florida for much cheaper prices.
It looks like we're about one day and three hours away from elections. So good luck to you, as well. Hopefully you'll need it. 😛