SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (113590)5/15/2012 8:20:06 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
That is the Judicial System and it is a much better system than relying on one man, the President, to decide your fate.

Why don't you sue? Somebody will sometime, and I expect it won't hold up in court.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (113590)5/15/2012 10:33:48 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 149317
 
And the system you trust is the one where folks who have money can seek to get a "more that fair justice" than the ones who don't. In fact you said it right and I quote: " I trust in the lawyer I can pay to represent ......"



To: RetiredNow who wrote (113590)5/15/2012 10:56:45 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Weary warriors favor Obama

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (Reuters) - Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show "drooling over firearms," as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars."

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.

While the 2012 campaign today is dominated by economic and domestic issues, military concerns could easily jump to the fore. Nearly 90,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Israeli politicians and their U.S. supporters debate over whether to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities as partisans bicker over proposed Pentagon budget cuts.

Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of "a dangerous course" in wanting to cut $1 trillion from the defense budget - although the administration's actual proposal is a reduction of $487 billion over the next decade.

"We should not negotiate with the Taliban," the former Massachusetts governor contends. "We should defeat the Taliban." He has blamed Obama for "procrastination toward Iran" and advocates arming Syrian rebels.

Romney, along with his primary rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, had also accused Obama of "appeasement" toward U.S. enemies - a charge that drew a sharp Obama rebuttal. "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who've been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement," the president shot back. He has reproached GOP candidates: "Now is not the time for bluster."

If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.

FADING COOL FACTOR

The GOP's heated rhetoric, aimed at the party's traditional hawks, might be expected to resonate with veterans. Yet in interviews in South Carolina, a military-friendly red state, many former soldiers expressed anger at the toll of a decade of war, questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, and worried that the surge in Afghanistan won't make a difference in the long run.

"We looked real cool going into Iraq waving our guns," said McDowell, 50, who retired from the 82d Airborne Division in November with a Legion of Merit and two Bronze Stars. "But people lost their lives, and it made no sense."

Now he worries. "I really don't like the direction we are going, how we seem to come closer daily towards a war with Iran."

In Columbia, where McDowell lives in a leafy subdivision, the streets are named for American Revolutionary war heroes, and the Confederate battle flag still flies on the capitol grounds. Pizza parlors offer a 10 percent discount to uniformed soldiers from nearby Fort Jackson, one of eight military bases that pump $13 billion a year into the state's economy.

In exit polls, a quarter of voters in January's primary identified themselves as veterans.

Among them were Karen and Kelly Grafton, devout Southern Baptists who live in the small town of Prosperity, outside Columbia, and spend their vacations at Nascar races. They voted for Santorum.

"He just came off a little bit better than the others," said Karen Grafton, 51, a real estate agent who served 20 years in the Air Force. "He stuck to his story about what he has done and what he will do."

The Graftons' votes, however, like many veterans', can't be taken as evidence of a hard-line military stance. Registered Republicans, they cast their ballots for Obama in 2008 because he promised to bring the troops home from Iraq.

"I went to war for George Bush," said Grafton, 48, a retired Army master sergeant who served in special operations units in Somalia and Iraq. "But we can't keep policing the world."

Karen Grafton, a retired Air Force recruiter, said she'll be "glad when we're out of Afghanistan." The military budget? "I'm sure it can be cut," she said. "Everyone has to make concessions." Still, many former soldiers worry that Pentagon cuts could mean stingier salaries, pensions, and education and housing benefits.

CASUALTY STATS ARE PERSONAL

In a squat building on a rutted street in West Columbia, three dozen former soldiers gathered around hot dogs and sodas for the Disabled Veterans of America's monthly meeting. Colorful military banners festooned the walls. The talk was somber.

Could someone volunteer to help care for "a fellow living in a dilapidated roach-infested trailer?" asked Chapter Commander John Ashmore. Could people contribute funds to an ex-Marine whose hospital bills were "overwhelming"?

Ashmore thanked everyone for distributing canned goods to the needy. And he had some news: "Veterans healthcare will be exempt from federal budget cuts," he said. "President Obama has signed a 3.6 percent cost of living increase to your benefits."

"I've already got it spent," shouted one of the group.

At the back, John Rush, 44, sat with a brace on an injured leg. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after two tours in Iraq. "The explosions, the bombs going off. You're scared, you're mad. The stress wears you out."

Rush got out of the Army in 2008, but it took three years for the government to approve his paperwork for psychiatric treatment. He is unemployed, and much of the time he says he feels "confused."

As for voting in this presidential election: "I haven't had that spark to get out and register."

The Pentagon counts more than 6,300 American dead and 33,000 wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Rand Corp study estimates that as many as 300,000 post-9/11 veterans suffer from PTSD or major depression, and about 320,000 may have experienced traumatic brain injuries, mainly from bombs.

For combat veterans such as McDowell, who enlisted at 19, the statistics are starkly personal.

With his direct gaze, erect posture and fondness for war mementos, he may seem to fit the stereotype of a battle-hardened sergeant. But this father of five shudders at the memory of the young Vietnamese-American at Fort Jackson, whose fear of deployment was brushed off by an officer. The soldier tried to commit suicide by shoving a pencil up his nose into his brain.

He chokes up when he recalls "the geek-faced kid" from Oklahoma who was brought in to fix office computers in McDowell's Iraq bomb dismantling unit. The young man, with no combat training, was sent into the field to hack into terrorists' laptops. Within weeks he suffered a mental breakdown. Returning stateside, he shot his two children to death and killed himself.

"It was sheer terror," McDowell said of the improvised explosive devices that guerrillas hid along roadways. "They'd strap gasoline cans to IEDs. Our soldiers burned alive. You'd hear them screaming, and you couldn't do anything."

Now he is "watching the primaries very closely to see who will be the least careless with soldiers and their families."

IT'S THE ECONOMY, SIR

Despite widespread disillusionment over recent wars, most veterans support some form of military action to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they want another ground war: Veterans lean toward a military spending policy that emphasizes special forces and unmanned systems.

Terry Seawright, a Navy reservist who drives a Fedex truck, voted for Obama in 2008 and plans to do so again in 2012. "I like the coolness and calmness of him," said Seawright, 46. "I like the way he handled Egypt and Libya. He said, ‘No troops on the ground.'"

Unless a conflict with Iran or Syria pushes foreign policy out front, economic issues seem more likely to sway the veterans' vote than military concerns - as is true for the country generally. Like other Americans, former soldiers are worried about jobs, the federal deficit, and the cost of living.

Michael Langston, a Baptist minister who served as commander of 110 military chaplains in Afghanistan, didn't carry a weapon but often visited the front lines. "I would go to trauma centers where they worked on soldiers who were burned and disfigured," he said. "We'd roll into villages where every man, woman and child had been massacred, and the Taliban had cut off heads and feet."

Back in the U.S., Langston, 57, suffered nightmares and sweats. Always a mild-mannered man, he began yelling at his kids. When a vehicle backfired in a supermarket parking lot, "I hit the ground and rolled under a car." He was diagnosed with PTSD.

Looking back, Langston, a graduate of the Naval War College, sees "a failed policy. When we leave, these places go back to the way they've done everything for thousands of years."

For all his frustration over military interventions, Langston said the election issues for him are “healthcare, jobs and economic stability.” A lifelong Republican, he voted for Gingrich in the primary but now supports Romney. "The economy is still faltering, the job rate has not gotten any better regardless of the hype, and the gas prices are killing us," he said.

Overall, like the rest of the nation, former soldiers are deeply concerned about the future. Only 24 percent in the Reuters poll said the country is headed in the right direction, with 60 percent saying it is off on the wrong track.

Langston said social issues will not influence his vote. As for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the now repealed policy that forced homosexuals out of the military, he came around to supporting repeal after initially opposing it. "An individual has a right to be who they are," he said.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, a majority of veterans now agree with him.

With the unpredictability of foreign involvements and the fragility of the domestic economy, it is too early to say who will eventually win the veteran vote.

Karen Grafton, who voted for Obama in 2008 based on his promise to end the Iraq war, now says, "I want someone to get us out of this economic turmoil. That's No. 1. I'm not sure he is the person to do that. But I don't blame him. He inherited a mess."

Asked about Obama's handling of his job, 27 percent of veterans approved, and 37 percent disapproved, with the rest undecided.

In his study, below a movie poster of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," McDowell, the Ron Paul supporter, flipped through pages of an 82nd Airborne Division yearbook, lingering on photographs of dead comrades. He recalled their ages, how many children they had, and how they died.

Partly for their sake, he avidly follows the campaign. He was turned off by mudslinging among Republican candidates, he said. And Obama? "If no one else can get their act together, I'll vote for that Democrat," he said. "My concern is who will do right for the soldier."

(Reporting by Margot Roosevelt; Editing by Lee Aitken and Prudence Crowther)




To: RetiredNow who wrote (113590)5/15/2012 1:08:40 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Who Really Caused The Deficit? (CHART)
Sahil Kapur
May 15, 2012, 5:17 AM

This week Republicans will attempt to move the national political conversation back to a familiar theme with a series of attacks on President Obama over the national debt. The GOP released a web video Monday bashing his “broken promises” on the deficit and previewed a major speech Tuesday by likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the issue.

Divorced from context, the numbers are uncomfortable for the President and are ready-made for pointed partisan attacks. Under Obama’s watch the national debt has risen from roughly $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a record high. But to what extent are his decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very little. The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn.

Those are economic facts of life known to experts but that often gets lost in the political debate (and which Obama’s opponents are willing to obscure). So with the GOP’s push to return the deficit to the center of the political conversation, here’s quick reminder of the basic facts that you may have forgotten.

As the chart below reveals, the main drivers of projected deficits over the next decade are the wars of the oughts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” — unemployment insurance spending, lower tax burdens — built into existing policy to combat economic downturns. Recovery measures by Bush and Obama caused a short-term spike in deficits but have mostly phased out and thus represent only modest fractions of the national debt.



The numbers, which come from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, assume national policy as of a year ago would be renewed. Thus, they don’t reflect expected peace dividends from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or revised economic growth projections, and it assumes the Bush tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety — something President Obama has vowed will not happen. But they broadly demonstrate that existing debt and projected deficits aren’t largely a consequence of Obama initiatives.

Since just after Obama’s victory, and with greater fervor since reclaiming the House, Republicans have used deficits and debt (the aggregate of accumulating deficits) as cudgels to attack spending on social programs. But their calls for fiscal responsibility mask an agenda, enshrined in a number of GOP budget measures, that’s aimed at slashing spending on programs for the poor and elderly, increasing defense spending, and cutting taxes on the rich — a platform that would dramatically alter the scope and size of government services, but reduce deficits and debt slowly. Obama’s budget proposal is projected to yield lower deficits over the next decade than the GOP alternative.

After agreeing to significant cuts in domestic spending in several legislative deals last year, President Obama and Democrats have insisted that further efforts to improve the nation’s fiscal outlook include new revenues. The GOP has balked at this demand, and as a result, Congress has gridlocked and isn’t expected to resolve any significant tax and spending issues until after the November election.

Chart by TPM’s Clayton Ashley

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (113590)5/15/2012 3:02:56 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 149317
 
5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In)

By Chris Mooney, a science and political journalist, blogger, podcaster, and experienced trainer of scientists in the art of communication. He is the author of four books, including the just-released The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality and the New York Times-bestselling The Republican War on Science. He blogs for Science Progress, a website of the Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund, and is a host of the Point of Inquiry podcast.

Voting image via Shutterstock

One of the first questions that usually comes up when people ask me about my book The Republican Brain is: “How do you explain my Uncle Elmer, who grew up a hard core Democrat and was very active in the union, but now has a bumper sticker that reads ‘Don’t Tread on Me’?”

Okay: I’m making this question up, but it’s pretty close to reality. People constantly want to know how to explain political conversions—cases in which individuals have changed political outlooks, sometimes very dramatically, from left to right or right to left.
When I get the standard political conversion question, the one I ask in return may come as a surprise: “Are you talking about permanent political conversions, or temporary ones?”

You see, Uncle Elmer is less interesting to me—and in some ways, less interesting to the emerging science of political ideology—than the committed Democrat who became strongly supportive of George W. Bush right after 9/11, but switched back to hating him a few months later. What causedthat to happen? Because it certainly doesn’t seem to have much to do with thinking carefully about the issues.

Indeed, the growing science of politics has uncovered a variety of interventions that can shift liberal people temporarily to the political right. And notably, none of them seem to have anything substantive to do with policy, or with the widely understood political differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Here is a list of five things that can make a liberal change his or her stripes:

Distraction. Several studies have shown that “cognitive load”—in other words, requiring people to do something that consumes most or all of their attention, like listening to a piece of music and noting how many tones come before each change in pitch—produces a conservative political shift.

In one study, for instance, liberal and conservative subjects were asked whether government health care should be extended to a hypothetical group of AIDS victims who were responsible for their own fates (they’d contracted the disease while knowing the risks, and having unprotected sex anyway). Liberals who were not under load—not distracted—wanted to help such people, despite the fact that they were personally responsible for their plight. But liberals under load were much more like conservatives, appearing to reason that this group of AIDS victims had gotten what they deserved. (Cognitive load did not appear to change the view of conservatives in the study.)

Drunkenness. Alcohol intoxication is not unlike cognitive load, in that it cuts down the capacity for in-depth, nuanced thinking, and privileges economical, quick responses. Sure enough, in a recent study of 85 bar patrons, blood alcohol content was related to increased political conservatism for liberals and conservatives alike.

The drinkers still knew whether they were liberal or conservative, of course. But when asked how much they agreed with a variety of statements of political principles—like, “Production and trade should be free of government interference”—higher blood alcohol content was associated with giving more conservative answers.

Time Pressure. In another study reported in the same paper, participants were asked how much they endorsed a variety of politically tinged words, like “authority” and “civil rights.” In one study condition, they had to see the term and respond to it in about 1.5 seconds; in the other condition, they had 4 seconds to do so. This made a political difference: Subjects under time pressure were more likely to endorse conservative terms.

Cleanliness/Purity. In another fascinating study, subjects who were asked political questions near a hand sanitizer, or asked to use a hand wipe before responding, also showed a rightward shift. In this case, political conservatism was being tied not to distraction, but rather, to disgust sensitivity—an emotional response to preserve bodily purity.

Fear. After 9/11, public support for President George W. Bush also immediately swelled. In fact, a study showed that Bush’s approval ratings increased whenever terror alert levels were issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, the phenomenon of “liberal hawks” who wanted to attack Iraq was much remarked upon. Why is that?

The answer seems to involve the amygdala, a region of the emotional brain that conditions our life-preserving responses to danger. Its activity seems to have political implications: When we’re deeply afraid, tough and decisive leaders are more appealing to us. So are militaristic and absolute responses, like going to war and the death penalty; things like civil liberties, meanwhile, matter less to us.

It is unlikely that all of the phenomena discussed above involve the same cognitive mechanism. For instance, disgust sensitivity is probably operating through a different part of the brain than fear sensitivity. Still, priming people to feel either fear or disgust (or the need for cleanliness) seems to favor political conservatism, and politically conservative candidates.

What all of this suggests is a pretty stunning conclusion: Maybe we’ve been thinking about political ideology in very much the wrong way. It seems to be at least partly rooted in things deeper and more primal than the policy issues of the day, and how we individually reason that we ought to handle them.

Moreover, it is striking that the research literature does not, at least at present, contain such a plethora of ways to bring about a temporary liberal shift—to make conservatives move left. Instead, what these cases seem to reveal are some inherent conservative political advantages, especially at times of deep fear, uncertainty, and stress. (And we’ve seen some of those recently.)

Aristotle famously wrote that “man is by nature a political animal.” Perhaps it’s about time that we pay more attention to what the word “nature” here really means.