Alright, let's call this a collaborative work. I'd like to see what the forum believes are the most significant accomplishments of the two Presidential candidates side by side. Should be interesting. Feel free to edit, add, move up/down, whatever. I'm just starting with the first for now. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.
Obama Romney
1. Affordable Care Act, 2010 1. Founding Bain Capital, one of the largest PE firms in the world.
Quote from: erfalf on August 22, 2012, 03:02:23 PM
Alright, let's call this a collaborative work. I'd like to see what the forum believes are the most significant accomplishments of the two Presidential candidates side by side. Should be interesting. Feel free to edit, add, move up/down, whatever. I'm just starting with the first for now. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.
Obama Romney
1. Affordable Care Act, 2010 1. Founding Bain Capital, one of the largest PE firms in the world.
2. Successfully removed Gaddafi from power with minimal 2. Romneycare is considered a major bi-partisan political coup
expense and American bloodshed
For President Obama, I figure we can take the 2008 campaign promises and add the yearly SOTU pander list, then just go down the list and check off all of the promises he completed. I see a couple. Anyone else see any?
1. Affordable Care Act, 2010
2. Drive unemployment below 6%
3. Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
4. Save GM
5. Balance the Budget
6. Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers
7. Expand the child and dependent care credit
8. Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
9. Create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers
10. Require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans
11. Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes
12. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
13. End the war in Iraq (according to the exact same timeline as the Bush administration)
14. End no-bid contracts above $25,000
15. Run the most transparent administration in history
16. Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges
17. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes
18. Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners
19. Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize
20. Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000
21. Forbid companies in bankruptcy like AIG from giving executives bonuses
22. Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court
23. Allow imported prescription drugs
24. Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs
25. Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
26. Double federal funding for cancer research
27. Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
28. Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security
29. Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave
30. Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year
31. Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
32. Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
33. Reinstate special envoy for the Americas
34. Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
35. Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database
36. Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
37. Allow five days of public comment before signing bills Bwahahahaha!
38. Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
39. Double funding for afterschool programs
40. Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law
41. Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour
42. Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups
43. Support tax deduction for artists
44. Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
45. Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
46. Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce
47. Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
48. Give annual "State of the World" address
49. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
50. Work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers
51. Establish a low carbon fuel standard
52. Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies
53. Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming
54. Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration
55. Require plug-in fleet at the White House
56. Mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012
57. Double federal program to help "reverse" commuters who go from city to suburbs
58. Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
59. Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009 (sure would have helped some folks)
60. Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
61. Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
As for Mitt, he has far fewer intensions and far more results.
1. As governor, he brought Mass back from a deep recession and balanced the budget by vetoing over 800 spending bills from the mostly Democrat lawmakers.
2. Eliminated a $3 billion dollar deficit without borrowing a dime or raising taxes, and created a $2 billion surplus.
3. Salvaged the 2002 Olympic games from bankruptcy and disaster, actually turning a profit.
4. Bain, of course and the companies they saved.
5. Dropped unemployment in his state from from 5.6% to 4.7%
6. Paid 14% or less in taxes on his vast fortune.
7. Never wrote two books about himself.
8. Took long trips in station wagons and included the family pet.
9. Never ate the family pet.
10. Out-raised his competitor in campaign funds without once using a teleprompter.
11. Selected a running mate with a reputation for financial brilliance causing economists Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Myron Scholes, and Edward Prescott–all Nobel laureates to throw their support behind him.
I'm sure there are more.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2012, 03:13:12 PM
2. Successfully removed Gaddafi from power with minimal 2. Romneycare is considered a major bi-partisan political coup
expense and American bloodshed
agape ;)
I fer sure thought you'd brag about Willard's Winter Olympics
Gassie, what's with you? post that link....
Winning!
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 22, 2012, 04:00:11 PM
agape ;)
I fer sure thought you'd brag about Willard's Winter Olympics
Gassie, what's with you? post that link....
Winning!
What link?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 22, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
2. Eliminated a $3 billion dollar deficit without borrowing a dime or raising taxes, and created a $2 billion surplus.
I guess now that the Supremes have dictated, Mitt actually did raise taxes while governor of Massachusetts. ;)
If I were Romney I would just be pounding on team Obama for his promises of transparency and things were going to be different. It has been anything but, well it may be different but not much. Many of the major pieces of legislation that many people are aware of were rammed through at break neck speed. It's something many people are aware of and understand.
Quote from: erfalf on August 24, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
If I were Romney I would just be pounding on team Obama for his promises of transparency and things were going to be different. It has been anything but, well it may be different but not much. Many of the major pieces of legislation that many people are aware of were rammed through at break neck speed. It's something many people are aware of and understand.
...some people say.
nathan posted a list of accomplishments a couple years ago that occurred in the first two years of Obama's regime. That still applies. And then the obstructionist movement shut that down, so the last two years have been on hold. (Don't get me wrong - not complaining too much about nothing much going on - every minute Congress doesn't pass a bill is an opportunity missed for them to do something more to hurt us.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 24, 2012, 10:21:41 AM
Don't get me wrong - not complaining too much about nothing much going on - every minute Congress doesn't pass a bill is an opportunity missed for them to do something more to hurt us.
That is accurate.
QuoteMICHAEL LEWIS REVEALS: How President Obama Made The Most Controversial Military Decision Of His Presidency
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-lewis-vanity-fair-profile-how-obama-made-the-decision-on-libya-2012-9
For months we've known that Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair profile of President Barack Obama would be something special — the access he was being granted was unprecedented.
Today, we obtained a copy of Vanity Fair's October issue to read Lewis' moving piece, which is called Obama's Way. (A partial preview has been posted here.)
Lewis describes a man whose brain is wired to subvert the establishment and to think outside normal parameters.
This deeply affects the way he makes decisions.
Take Obama's decision to invade Libya, for example. Lewis had the privilege of learning how the President sends American troops into battle.
Lewis describes a scene in which the normal cast of characters had been assembled, either physically or virtually, in the Situation Room in March of last year (Think: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
They had set out to decide if the U.S. would intervene in Libya. Then-dictator Muammar Qaddafi was racing across the desert in jeeps and tanks heading for the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a city of 1.2 million. He had threatened to "cleanse" the country house by house.
Naturally, as Obama's advisors described in the meeting, that meant a massacre.
Before the President goes into a meeting, he is told who will be there, and what they will contribute. It's a road map. In this particular meeting, after each attendee shared something about Libya, Obama would decide if he would do nothing or, as European leaders had proposed, create a no-fly zone over the country.
According to Lewis--and as is Obama's practice when decisions are truly difficult--he went off the road map and asked, "'Would a no-fly zone do anything to stop the scenario we just heard?'
After it became clear that it would not, Obama said, 'I want to hear from some other folks in the room.'"
And so Obama changed the question. It became 'Should we act in Libya?' — the details would come later. The President heard from his speechwriter, who would have to explain Obama's decision to the American people, and an advisor to Joe Biden who had been in attendance at the meeting and served under President Clinton during the Rwandan genocide. Both said they felt intervention was necessary.
Lewis writes:
"His desire to hear from junior people is a warm personality trait as much as a cool tactic, of a piece with his desire to play golf with White House cooks rather than with CEO's and basketball with people who treat him as just another player on the court; to stay home and read a book rather than go to a White House cocktail party; and to seek out, in any crowd, not the beautiful people but the old people. The man has his status needs, but they are unusual. And he has a tendency, an unthinking first step, to subvert established status structures. After all, he became president.
Obama sent his staff from the meeting saying that he wanted an alternative to the no-fly zone — something real that actually solved the problem in Libya.
At the team's next meeting in the Situation Room, they presented the option to push for a U.N. resolution to take "all necessary measures" to protect the people of Libya and use America's faster, more powerful air force to eviscerate Qaddafi's army. The Europeans would be in charge of the clean-up.
This option was distasteful to basically everyone, but Obama.
As you know, Obama decided against inaction — "That's not who we are," he told Lewis.
From the piece:
"Then Obama went upstairs to the Oval Office to call European heads of state and, as he puts it, 'call their bluff."
SEE ALSO: Michael Lewis had the experience of a lifetime while writing about Barack Obama >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-lewis-vanity-fair-profile-how-obama-made-the-decision-on-libya-2012-9#ixzz25dPdag1q
I look forward to this issue of VF.
Let there be no doubt who is better prepared to take on foreign affairs.
Quote from: erfalf on August 24, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
If I were Romney I would just be pounding on team Obama for his promises of transparency and things were going to be different. It has been anything but, well it may be different but not much. Many of the major pieces of legislation that many people are aware of were rammed through at break neck speed. It's something many people are aware of and understand.
Yeah, rammed right through that ObamaCare bill. It was only debated for a year.
Quote from: erfalf on August 24, 2012, 08:09:46 AM
Many of the major pieces of legislation that many people are aware of were rammed through at break neck speed. It's something many people are aware of and understand.
Apparently not. You aren't even aware of the timeline and that was only 3 years ago. When you were 27. Certainly should have been to the age of awareness....
And yeah...it sounds like it's about your age again...but it isn't. It is about how unaware of even the most recent history the story always shows.
Get away from Fox once in a while.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 05, 2012, 08:03:15 PM
Apparently not. You aren't even aware of the timeline and that was only 3 years ago. When you were 27. Certainly should have been to the age of awareness....
And yeah...it sounds like it's about your age again...but it isn't. It is about how unaware of even the most recent history the story always shows.
Get away from Fox once in a while.
I recall them just fine. In fact I recall them breaking their pledge to have legislation available for reading for 72 hours prior to votes.
I do have one more accomplishment for Obama. During his administration millions of American's an opportunity to find a new hobby.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199815/Obamas-DNC-2012-speech-Bleak-unemployment-numbers-morning-Obama-tells-DNC-problems-solved.html
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:49:09 AM
I recall them just fine. In fact I recall them breaking their pledge to have legislation available for reading for 72 hours prior to votes.
I do have one more accomplishment for Obama. During his administration millions of American's an opportunity to find a new hobby.
Hmmm...ok...I downloaded 3 or 4 drafts in the couple weeks before it passed so I could look for "death panels" (there were none). The thing was changing fast, so it really became an exercise in futility to do that. I probably did have a few dozen pages missing near the end, but the major substance was there. Didn't you look at it?
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?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 07, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
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?
That will probably happen when Warren Buffett voluntarily pays what he thinks his fair share of taxes are rather than the legal minimum.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 06:35:38 PM
That will probably happen when Warren Buffett voluntarily pays what he thinks his fair share of taxes are rather than the legal minimum.
What ticket is he running on?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 07, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
Hmmm...ok...I downloaded 3 or 4 drafts in the couple weeks before it passed so I could look for "death panels" (there were none). The thing was changing fast, so it really became an exercise in futility to do that. I probably did have a few dozen pages missing near the end, but the major substance was there. Didn't you look at it?
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?
First, the promise was to have bills available for 72 hours before passage (campaign promise broken) . Did not happen. Used a rule reserved for budgetary items (reconciliation), which in my opinion was a pretty big stretch. The "nuclear option" (which Obama denounced) was used to break the filibuster. And it was widely hated (I think polls usually had about 25% supporting it). Yes, I think it would be safe to say it was "rammed through" by pretty much any measure.
And you keep using that hypocrite line that is quit lame. You know as well as anyone, that no one is going to do things against their best interest within the bounds of the law. That is why it is so hard to compete with Democrats who keep promising all kinds of free stuff (that really isn't free).
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:16:03 PM
First, the promise was to have bills available for 72 hours before passage (campaign promise broken) . Did not happen. Used a rule reserved for budgetary items (reconciliation), which in my opinion was a pretty big stretch. The "nuclear option" (which Obama denounced) was used to break the filibuster. And it was widely hated (I think polls usually had about 25% supporting it). Yes, I think it would be safe to say it was "rammed through" by pretty much any measure.
And you keep using that hypocrite line that is quit lame. You know as well as anyone, that no one is going to do things against their best interest within the bounds of the law. That is why it is so hard to compete with Democrats who keep promising all kinds of free stuff (that really isn't free).
W.O.W. ::)
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
What ticket is he running on?
Doesn't matter. Heiron asked erflaf (who I believe is not a candidate for any public office):
QuotePhilosophical 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?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:16:03 PM
That is why it is so hard to compete with Democrats who keep promising all kinds of free stuff (that really isn't free).
Funny, it's the Democrats who seem to be saying that stuff needs to be paid for. You seem stuck in an earlier time.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 09:20:45 PM
Doesn't matter. Heiron asked erflaf (who I believe is not a candidate for any public office):
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.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:52:16 AM
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.
Doesn't matter. That's only if the Dems do it. ::)
Quote from: Hoss on September 08, 2012, 08:53:52 AM
Doesn't matter. That's only if the Dems do it. ::)
You need to apply full opposite rudder, relax the backpressure, and recover from the resulting dive.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 12:47:36 PM
You need to apply full opposite rudder, relax the backpressure, and recover from the resulting dive.
It sounds so easy when you say it like that.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:52:16 AM
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 08, 2012, 04:28:05 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2012, 02:12:08 PM
It sounds so easy when you say it like that.
It really is that easy. Of course no one here can do that. Everyone will spin until impact.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 11:43:44 PM
It really is that easy. Of course no one here can do that. Everyone will spin until impact.
Surely your flight instructor taught you? ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:48:34 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 12:18:06 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 06:41:34 PM
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.
So ignorance makes him innocent. Gotcha.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 12:44:51 AM
Surely your flight instructor taught you? ;)
OK, everyone but me will spin to impact. Spins in an aircraft can be fun, especially stopping on a specific heading after a predetermined number of turns. (ie. end up going north after 2-1/2 turns.) Stopping on a heading is where this forum falls short.
Oh, I almost forgot: Spin training is not required for a Private Certificate. I believe it is required to get a CFI. The FAA determined (incorrectly in my view) that stall training is enough many years ago.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
The FAA determined (incorrectly in my view) that stall training is enough many years ago.
I didn't think most models of small private planes can reasonably be expected to spin. I seem to recall there are a few that it's not terribly unusual with, though? I remember it being covered in one of the Sporty's Air Facts tapes I once watched and that's about everything I know about the subject, so I'll defer to your actual expertise if you tell me differently. :P
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 06:41:34 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 06:41:34 PM
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.
He was specifically waiting for tribal funding to come through to start the job - from the stimulus.
Seriously....geez.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:16:03 PM
First, the promise was to have bills available for 72 hours before passage (campaign promise broken) . Did not happen. Used a rule reserved for budgetary items (reconciliation), which in my opinion was a pretty big stretch. The "nuclear option" (which Obama denounced) was used to break the filibuster. And it was widely hated (I think polls usually had about 25% supporting it). Yes, I think it would be safe to say it was "rammed through" by pretty much any measure.
And you keep using that hypocrite line that is quit lame. You know as well as anyone, that no one is going to do things against their best interest within the bounds of the law. That is why it is so hard to compete with Democrats who keep promising all kinds of free stuff (that really isn't free).
Do you even KNOW how to read?? The bill was available for several weeks ahead of signature. If you weren't keeping up, that is NOT a reflection one way or the other on Obama.
So very sad you feel the truth is quit(e) lame. As for the truly lame, plaintive bleat about "best interest within the bounds of the law",...well, that's why they just buy the Congress. To make amoral, illegal, no-integrity actions legal.
And again - free stuff from Democrats?? Whew! Talk about out there... I definitely gotta find some of what you smoke...after if becomes legal - because then it will be moral and ethical and literally dripping with integrity. Refer to previous posts on the Federal Debt History site.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 07:04:52 PM
I didn't think most models of small private planes can reasonably be expected to spin. I seem to recall there are a few that it's not terribly unusual with, though? I remember it being covered in one of the Sporty's Air Facts tapes I once watched and that's about everything I know about the subject, so I'll defer to your actual expertise if you tell me differently. :P
Most pilots in the last 40 (or more) years have learned to fly in a Cessna 150, 152, or 172. All three are capable of spins for training. I just checked the Owners' Manuals I have for them. The 172 (thru at least the 1982 172P) must be operated in the Utility category (no one in the rear seats and lower gross weight). I believe the Piper Tomahawk was placarded against spins. I don't have a Piper Cherokee Owner's manual so I don't know about them. Some planes are placarded against spins because they were not tested during the Certification process or did not meet the requirements of recovery from the spin. Most small planes will spin though. Some will not. I believe the Ercoupe will not spin because it lacks elevator authority to induce the required stall.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 09, 2012, 08:25:54 PM
And again - free stuff from Democrats??
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 08:43:01 PM
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.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 09, 2012, 08:52:44 PM
his supporters don't get squat. It's the Romney supporters that get what they want at a very good price.
Again, we disagree.
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!
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?
Ok, let's backtrack to how this all got started.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 07, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
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:
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:52:16 AM
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 08, 2012, 04:28:05 PM
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.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:48:34 PM
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 12:18:06 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
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 ;D)
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 06:33:01 PM
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 06:41:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoss on September 09, 2012, 06:51:36 PM
So ignorance makes him innocent. Gotcha.
Show how he is ignorant.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 07:42:12 PM
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?
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:21:48 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2012, 01:28:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:51:00 PM
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.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2012, 02:05:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 08:54:57 PM
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.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 10, 2012, 09:45:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2012, 10:50:54 PM
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)