Presidential Candidate Accomplishments

[heironymouspasparagus]

You haven't seen the clips of people wanting free Obama money?  It may or may not be true but it's what significant numbers of his supporters believe.

Yeah, well that's one of those "wish in one hand, shi$$ in the other and see which one gets full first." things...his supporters don't get squat.  It's the Romney supporters that get what they want at a very good price.

[Red Arrow]

his supporters don't get squat.  It's the Romney supporters that get what they want at a very good price.

Again, we disagree.

[AquaMan]

Yeah, I see those ads all the time. On the edge of my screen when I open my Yahoo e-mail. Along with muscle bound 80'yr olds, directives from Obama to refinance, how to simply and effectively avoid speeding tickets in Oklahoma and a lot of weird stuff I refuse to try to understand. Who buys those ads and how effective could they possibly be? Anyone stupid enough to believe them wouldn't be smart enough have a computer!

[Conan71]

Someone care to fill me in on what Mullen has to do with this thread?

Secondly, what is the issue with Mullen and stimulus funding?

Third, just because someone is an (R) doesn't mean as say a legislator or governor you are against all spending.  What sort of idiot governor would turn down federal highway funding, which is an expected government function?  Shouldn't a Senator or Representative attempt to create more jobs in their district via available federal programs if they are available?

Should a Republican businessman opt out of a construction project because it's funded by stimulus money or federal funding?

[erfalf]

Ok, let's backtrack to how this all got started.

Philosophical question for you - are you gonna hypocritically take advantage of the benefits of the healthcare reform act while you are ranting so adamantly against it?  Or will you do the ethical, moral thing and adhere to your principles and reject any of the features of the bill, no matter what it may cost you or your family?

Good question. Bad premise. Personally I think he is mixing the two things up. Acting morally or ethically (or whatever you want to call it) does not mean you have to follow every proposal you have for government especially since, these are future propositions. I in fact point out later how you cannot act in that way in regards to some things (e.g. smoking pot, paying lower taxes, etc.). My answer:

I guess I miss the point. Are you saying it is not likely that any one, republican or democrat, will follow their own espoused principles and do the ethical, moral things?

Mullin just proved your point if so. He hates stimulus money and government handouts but was able to rationalize his acceptance of same.

Paying more or less taxes is not a moral issue. Murder or theft is a moral issue. If you say tax rates should be higher, and then not paying higher taxes in the meantime does not make you a hypocrite of diminish your argument (at least to me) in the lease. I understand there are legitimate reasons for just about everything. That just doesn't mean they are the best solutions.

On the flip side, if I think taxes should be lower, does that mean I get to pay less taxes because it would be the "ethical thing to do". See where this argument falls apart? It's not exactly the same but it feels similar to people who pull out the race card when they want the argument shut down. That's just my opinion mind you. Nothing personal against you. I have heard plenty of people use that argument.

Wasn't talking to you.

Nonetheless, funny how you ignored the word "ethical" yet dwelled on the word "moral". The tax argument is specious.
Its as if you zeroed in on something you could make a point on and ignored what you can't. You're pretty consistent with that.

Now put the word "ethical" or if you dare, the word "integrity" in your post and see if it still makes sense. Nothing personal. I see people do this all the time to avoid what they can't defend.

And I'm a word parser? Alright.

But it is the same. Acting ethically would be following the law. Acting morally would be following the law. It really is that simple. I wasn't ignoring one or the other. They are one in the same.

Not integrity may be a whole nother ball of wax. But even then, I would argue that acting within the bounds of the law is acting with integrity. Particularly in this day in age regarding politicians.

What is legal is often not ethical or moral. Thankfully, we are not stupid enough to merge the law and ethics. There are plenty of things that people shouldn't do that are perfectly legal, as it should be in a society that claims to have freedom of religion.

I agree with nathanm here. Integrity/morality/ethically are all subjective. There is not an end all be all book of ethics. It is and always will be opinion. How can we expect our politicians to act within the bounds of laws that aren't even made up yet? (let alone the one's that are already on the books  )

He seems quite confused. Lets use a concrete example and some definitions.

Morality: the quality of being morally right; rightness; virtue. Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong.

Integrity: Uprightness of character; probity; honesty.

Now tell me Erfalf, if this story concerns a man of integrity and morality.

Mullin, a republican conservative running for Congress, complains loud and angrily about Obama stimulus money. He says it not only doesn't work but is counterproductive, immoral and a taxpayer waste. He says he will stop such giveaways when he is elected. He also rails against Obama's remarks about no one making it alone in this world. He assures the press he grew his company without government help. In fact, they hindered his business. These are boilerplate conservative Republican stands. He said everything right except he forgot to blame the liberal press for misquoting him.

A Native American tribe was awarded stimulus money to build housing for their low income tribal members. The tribe included some money with the stimulus and went looking for a contractor to build them.

Mullin applied for those contracts and received the lucrative contracts. The program was a success in that it stimulated the tribe to provide funds, build housing and stimulated MULLIN PLUMBING's bank account! He did this at the same time he was railing against Obama's horrid stimulus program.

When the story was divulged in the local newspaper, Mullin says he has no remorse because it was a contract from a third party, not the government. But he was aware of where the money came from and apparently was able to overlook his strong moral commitment against stimulus money.

He lacked integrity for not being true to his own political and personal beliefs. And, he seems to think that dirty money is not dirty if its been laundered through another nation's coffers so he lacks the quality of morality. Lastly, his company prospered because of government help.

He is as confused as you are.

Of course the example he uses is a Republican candidate. But all that aside, I would imagine that you would be hard pressed to find someone (well except Aqua) who would  say that Mullin was acting immoral. Doing business within the bounds of the law by most peoples views would be moral.

If you can show me that Mullen knew that the funds used for the project were stimulus funds then maybe it is an integrity issue. However, I would guess most contractors wouldn't have a clue what the sourcing of the funds for every job they do are. It's not like Mullen's firm applied for the subsidy directly. But as it appears, it is a case of neither. It is a case of an opponent in search of a story.

Since I really don't have much of an understanding of the situation, I asked Aqua to clarify. But from a cursory glance at some articles, it appears to have the smell of hit pieces.

So ignorance makes him innocent.  Gotcha.

Show how he is ignorant.

Who do you think the opponent is? The press? That figures. Hypocrisy is old news in politics. It didn't even make the front page and they soft pedaled his earlier remarks. They aren't naive, they have seen this stuff before.

Keep your last post in an envelope and come back 5-10 years for a good laugh. Yeah, stupid contractors who are about to lock up two $300,000 contracts don't know where the money came from. That's good.  Look up the story in TW or online.

Mullin knew where the money came from.  He didn't think it relevant because it had been effectively laundered. Not his words, mine.  He had established "plausible deniability" so that naive guys like you would swallow his hypocrisy. Truth is, he had to know because the money came with lots of necessary documentation as with any government contract, Native American or US government. In this case, both. He has not denied knowing it was stimulus money, he has denied it mattered because a third party contracted with him.

And you ignored the other issues, but I'm beginning to see that as a part of your strategy.

I believe the original story made the front page, and all responses from the candidate were buried. But whatever. What did I ignore. I asked for clarification on probably the most important aspect of the whole story. I really don't see how my comment was either funny or out of line. But thanks for the name calling.

So now, back to the main point. Is it unethical/immoral to espouse beliefs of small government and then accept stimulus money. Well, I'll follow up with some of my own questions. Is it ethical/moral to insist and lower taxes and continue to pay higher taxes? Is it ethical/moral to insist on closing a center where prisoners are tortured but keep it open? Is it ethical to send our brothers and sisters to war to murder other people?

[nathanm]

I would imagine that you would be hard pressed to find someone (well except Aqua) who would  say that Mullin was acting immoral. Doing business within the bounds of the law by most peoples views would be moral.

Here's the thing. It wouldn't be immoral for me to take stimulus funds and provide goods and services in return. I don't believe that the taxation authority is itself immoral as some here like to claim. Mullin, on the other hand, apparently has said that the stimulus specifically and government spending generally is destroying our nation. Therefore, by taking the money, he was directly contributing to destroying our country and he knew it. He chose the standard, so I don't really see anything wrong with judging him by it.

[erfalf]

Here's the thing. It wouldn't be immoral for me to take stimulus funds and provide goods and services in return. I don't believe that the taxation authority is itself immoral as some here like to claim. Mullin, on the other hand, apparently has said that the stimulus specifically and government spending generally is destroying our nation. Therefore, by taking the money, he was directly contributing to destroying our country and he knew it. He chose the standard, so I don't really see anything wrong with judging him by it.

I don't see too much of a problem in it either. But do I think it makes him a bad person (immoral), no way. Do I think it makes me a bad person to go to a state sponsored school when I generally think that privatization would be better? No. Honestly, how can one completely avoid government? It is nearly impossible unless one wants to live off the grid.

We go back and forth on what we think would be better, but it is virtually impossible to expect someone to live by those standards because they are just that hypothetical. Most people don't know how to live by them because they don't exist yet.

[Conan71]

Someone care to explain what Mullen did that's hypocritical.  Either I missed it earlier in the thread or someone interjected it without explaining the back-story.  Some of us have better things to do than read the Tulsa World cover to cover every day.

[nathanm]

But do I think it makes him a bad person (immoral), no way.

I don't, either, but that's not relevant. The problem is that he apparently does think that government spending is immoral. Knowing that, he still chose to take some of the money for himself. That looks like a serious lack of sound ethical judgement to me. Not because he took the money, but because he took the money while believing he was hurting his country by doing so.

[erfalf]

I don't, either, but that's not relevant. The problem is that he apparently does think that government spending is immoral. Knowing that, he still chose to take some of the money for himself. That looks like a serious lack of sound ethical judgement to me. Not because he took the money, but because he took the money while believing he was hurting his country by doing so.

Did he really say that it was immoral. As far as I knew, he just thought the stimulus was a giant waste of money. That's a pretty big difference if it is the case. Care to cite if he did say it was wrong.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Again, we disagree.

It's that denial-of-reality thing you have going related to the disproportionate rewards for the richest rich.  The 1%ers...

Example - Abercrombie CEO Jeffries got more than $48 million for 2012...down from about $120 million in 2009.  All this while the stock is half price.  And in 2009, IIRC, the company itself made about $250,000.  Go figure...  you know stockholders gotta love that.  Granted, the scale is more than average.  The action is the same.

[Red Arrow]

It's that denial-of-reality thing you have going related to the disproportionate rewards for the richest rich.  The 1%ers...

What denial of reality are you referring to?  I am well aware that some big wigs are paid more than they are worth.  I am also aware that there are benefits for the less fortunate such as earned income tax credits and standard deductions that are a significant portion of many taxpayers' income.  I also remember losing a "National Merit Scholarship" because my father supposedly made too much money.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What denial of reality are you referring to?  I am well aware that some big wigs are paid more than they are worth.  I am also aware that there are benefits for the less fortunate such as earned income tax credits and standard deductions that are a significant portion of many taxpayers' income.  I also remember losing a "National Merit Scholarship" because my father supposedly made too much money.

Should have just been a Rhodes Scholar, then....

Or you could have just borrowed the money from your family....(lol)