Background:
Conservatives Seem To Like Only Two Options: War Or Austerity!

The economics of this situation is in this hip-hop video, towards the end...

At the end of the above video, where you see "cronies" lighting cigars with money i.e. the rich people giving each other money while starving the rest of the country (i.e. war is profitable, especially when you starve everyone else to squeeze out every penny, i.e. the last past). Also, don't fear the boom & the bust. There are much bigger problems to deal with - such as the ones outlined in this series - before we start fine tuning decades of economics. Especially since the new economists got dumber.

Notes:

Economics perspective example video: Manufacturing jobs have become more specialized requiring less labor and more technical expertise.

Pointless expenditures: $1.2 trillion for an outdated plan that doesn't work! = "In fact, the entire $1.2 trillion dollars that the sequester is supposed to save could be realized by cutting one unneeded, wasteful boondoggle: the $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter program. The F-35, billed as the next generation all-purpose military fighter and bomber, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its performances in recent tests have been so bad that the Pentagon has been forced to dumb-down the criteria. It is overweight, overpriced, and unwieldy. It is also an anachronism: we no longer face the real prospect of air-to-air combat in this era of 4th generation warfare. The World War II mid-air dogfight era is long over" http://the-free-foundation.org/tst3-3-2013.html

Video: Senator Bernie Sanders also thinks sending manufacturing jobs abroad is bad economic policy (as he argues here against Alan Greenspan)

Ron Paul Video: There are "900 bases in 150 countries"

From The Economist: Indeed, the one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.


On Paul Ryan's "Plan":

Paul Ryan Finally Meets a Budget Cut He Hates Paul Ryan is a budget hawk's budget hawk, never one to believe a government bureaucrat who self-servingly claims that a spending cut will cause real damage to his program and the people it benefits. But there are exceptions:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed skepticism Thursday that U.S. military leaders were being honest in their budget requests to Congress. “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice,” Ryan said during a forum on the budget sponsored by the National Journal. "We don't think the generals believe their budget is really the right budget."

"You don't believe the generals?" [managing editor Kristin] Roberts asked.
"What I believe is this budget does hollow out defense," Ryan responded...."I think there’s a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the Pentagon’s budget," Ryan added, saying his proposal was an "honest Pentagon budget." Just to be absolutely clear here: if we're talking about a program that helps the poor or the elderly or the sick, Ryan is eager to cut spending. In fact, he's usually eager to be the biggest budget cutter in the room. But if it's a program for the military, he won't accept spending cuts even if the military brass supports them. In fact, he insists on raising their budget. For some reason, this is known in mainstream circles as being a "deficit hawk."


i.e. What Paul Ryan is doing is taking a sledgehammer to everything not involved with bombing others - i.e. Conservatives Seem To Like Only Two Options: War Or Austerity!

Current "Legend" Series Position {Began here/here}...

Background:
FBI Consultant: 1 in 5 calls Are Recorded & Logged In A Central Computer!

This is an old documentary by Encyclopedia Britannica... 

... that provides a way for a person to measure the levels of democracy and despotism in a society. This documentary is made in 1946 in collaboration with Harold D. Lasswell PhD of Yale University a political scientist. Harold D. Laswell PhD begins with the statement, Avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism. He then encourages a person to look beyond fine words and noble phrases and to use a couple of scales as yardsticks to measure the levels of democracy or despotism that may exist in a community.

Democracy & Despotism: 1940s Encyclopedia Britannica Films by Maria Popova
Vintage lessons in civic harmony, or how small-scale common courtesy paves the way for large-scale peace. In 1945 and 1946, immediately following the end of World War II, Encyclopedia Britannica’s films division produced two educational short films, one on democracy and one on despotism, exploring how societies and nations rank on the spectrum from democracy to despotism by measuring the degree to which power is concentrated and respect for individuals restricted. More than half a century later, these analyses remain a compelling metric of social harmony and discord, in an era when we’re still struggling to understand the psychology of riots  in a global political climate where the tension between despotism and democracy is in sharper focus than ever. (read more)  Despotism (1946 Encyclopedia Britannica educational film)

The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of Government

"There is a reason we refer to "the rule of law and not of men" when discussing the American political system. It is because a republican form of government seeks to restrain the unbridled and quixotic passions of pure democracy, rather than yield to them. It also rejects the desire of the majority in favor of individual rights. Democracy seeks to assert the right of the group, but so does a mob with a hangman's noose. There's also a reason why lady justice is blindfolded: She is not to see the individuals, interest groups, race, or any characteristic at all of those that plead before her--her proper concern is not directed towards them; her care is to decide the law. It's also why the question of justice as presented before judges is not one of mercy (that belongs in the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in law), but one of exacting only what the law requires be exacted. The rule of law is all about the removal of arbitrary will from its application. A judge who seeks to apply his own notions of justice and mercy (as opposed to those notions being defined by the people through law) is a judge who seeks to impose arbitrary will in opposition to the rule of law. And it is arbitrary will that is the very definition of tyranny.

Notes from the above documentary...

You can measure any community on this simple scale;

Be careful NOT to assume that the 'mere form of a government can guard you against despotism'.

Germany was a Republic and yet a despotic ruler was able to take root (i.e. Hitler).

A competent observer looks beyond fine words and noble phrases. [even Hitler used fine words and noble phrases - You look instead at history, actions, behaviour  results of policies (and who was the controller behind the scene NOT just the face of an action)... Then follow the dots into the present using a holistic perspective]

Two yardsticks have been proven to help any community to discover how close it is to despotism;

The Respect Scale

As a community moves towards despotism, respect is restricted to fewer people (such as restricting respect to ONLY members of a small group or one political party).

A community is becoming despotic is respect is withheld from a large group of people on account

of thier political attitudes. (such as persecution because someone is wealthy, of a different race or religion etc.).

The ability of every citizen to better themselves (and educate themselves) is another important measurement of determining the level of respect in society.

The opportunity to develop useful skills is important but not enough as the opportunity to put such skills to use (make a living) is another important measurement on the respect scale.

The Power Scale

This scale is useful to determine the citizens share in making decisions for thier community.

When decision making is left in a few hands (or compiled into a huge bill so that there is at least one issue you feel so strongly for that you have to vote for it even if other aspects of the bill is bad for the community/country - then you have limited choice {and have been tricked!}) THEN the community is moving towards despotism.

Today, a community can move towards despotism by allowing power to become concentrated in the hands of a few.

The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the Will of The People.

Despotism can be official AND unofficial.


The spread of respect and power in a community can be measured using the following 2 scales;

Economic Distribution

If a communities economic distribution becomes slanted then it is moving towards despotism.

If middle income groups grow smaller, then despotism has a better chance to gain a foothold.

One sign of a move towards a despotic society is the concentration of land in the hands of a few people.

When farmers lose thier farms they lose thier independence.

In communities that depend on almost on a single industry (such as a factory or mine) will have find that maintaining economic balance is a challenging problem

Tax Burden

Another sign of a poorly balanced economy is a taxation system that presses heaviest on those least able to pay.

Larger amount of a poorer person's income is spent on food, so sales taxes press heaviest on the poor and middle class.

The Information Scale

A community rests low on the information scale when the press/media is controlled by a few people and when citizens HAVE TO accept what they are told.

If students are not taught critical thinking skills (with a well rounded education so they have basic knowledge of history, politics, sophism, economics etc.) THEN despotism has a good chance of establishing itself.

By keeping students unable to think critically, you get adults who can't think critically (or have any ability to evaluate facts from lies). These adults will accept whatever thier chosen authority source tells them.

Current "Legend" Series Position {Began here/here}...

Background:
GOP's "Hypnosis" - Guilt By Association Is Thier Main Measure Of Guilt For Discrimination
Stephen Colbert Follows The Trayvon Martin Case From Shooting To Acquital
Glenn Beck's "Hypnosis" - Framing All Liberals As Nazis Using Fear & Authority For Perfect Mind Control
Related: What Is Hypnosis?

Peter King Understands Violent Radicalism Tennessee fights back against Sharia law, and Peter King holds a hearing to investigate radical American Muslims.  (03:31): 

Who is Peter King?

Article 1 on Peter King:
But according to experts in counterterrorism law, if the tough-on-terror policies King trumpets today had taken effect a few decades earlier, King himself might have been subject to prosecution. Over parts of three decades, from his days as an aspiring politician in Long Island through his early years in Congress, King was one of the nation's most outspoken supporters of the Irish Republican Army and a prolific fundraiser for the Irish Northern Aid Committee (NorAid), allegedly the IRA's American fundraising arm. The IRA waged a paramilitary campaign against the British presence in Northern Ireland for decades before peace accords were signed in 1998. Part of that effort included bombings and shootings that resulted in civilian deaths in England and Northern Ireland. During the period of King's involvement, the US government accused both NorAid and the IRA of links to terrorism.

Article 2 on Peter King: "The British government is a murder machine," King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a "legitimate force." And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, to George Washington.

Fareed Zakaria -Fareed Zakaria says suicide bombers get 72 white raisins, not 72 virgins.  (06:41):

Batman's Muslim Sidekick -  Aasif Mandvi meets a comic book artist who thinks Batman's Muslim sidekick, Nightrunner, could spell doom for the American way of life.  (04:26): 

Current "Legend" Series Position {Began here/here}...

With ALL the jobs being sent abroad and ALL the Government healthcare jobs gone, there will be just one place left to work... the military...

Moment Of Zen: Colbert Report: Solutions to America's Financial Worries - World War III

Points to Ponder:
1. There are "900 bases in 150 countries"
2. From The Economist: Indeed, the one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.
3. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report Use Humor To Tell Truths

Senator Sanders on Continuous  American Domestic Policy Under Bush & Beyond:"You have told the American people that you support a trade policy which is selling them out." ---Rep. Bernard Sanders to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on 7/16/03... (On sending PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS OUT OF THE US thus creating only one real job opening... war.)

Video proof: Manufacturing jobs have become more specialized requiring less labor and more technical expertise - i.e. small companies making big ticket items such as fighter jets; this means less people are employed, smaller number of people make huge profits and these huge profits make the economy look like its growing when actually its just a few companies making huge profits benefiting a small group of people.

"Their main problem with Ron Paul... is because he won't pre-agree to start a war with Iran" - Jon Stewart:

Ron Paul on War Party Warmongerings: 
Ron Paul on Georgia and Military Provocation of Russia
Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It (Robin Hood?)
Ron Paul Post Debate - Foreign Policy and Iran 
Ron Paul with Sean Hannity on Iran i e Warmongering and Foreign Policy
Why Ron Paul's Plan of Cutting 5 Departments/Cabinet-Posts Is Reasonable.

It's interesting that this whole move towards war is covered in a rather shallow way in this video: 

Alan Greespan (former head of the FED under Clinton AND Bush) pushed to move jobs abroad, destroying the manufacturing base of the US = Senator Bernie Sanders  thinks Alan Greenspan shouldn't be sending jobs abroad. 

State today: Manufacturing jobs have become more specialized requiring less labor and more technical expertise - i.e. small companies making big ticket items such as fighter jets; this means less people are employed, smaller number of people make huge profits and these huge profits make the economy look like its growing when actually its just a few companies making huge profits benefiting a small group of people. 

So. No jobs. No Manufacturing sector. The housing bubble was fueled by Alan Greenspan's bad policies combined with the worst housing development plan known to man (passed by George Bush)... and that's how you bring down the economy folks! Notice that if the Federal Government didn't have so much power over mortgages and how these mortgages are given out then this housing bubble financial disaster would never have happened. And if Alan Greenspan, with his private bank controlling public interests, hadn't pushed to create policies to move private sector businesses abroad then this job crisis would never have been created.

On top of all that, top controllers allowed the biggest Wall Street scam in history to occur... then bailed them out... then turned on the government for having too much debt!

On the one hand, the debts of private banks and those who own that debt, the bond holders, are being protected from any losses by the publicly funded bailouts. Public debt, on the other hand, at the insistence of the same banks and bond holders we have bailed out, is being paid down at breakneck speed, no matter what the cost in unemployment and the destruction of social services.

This double standard is creating two different groups with very different financial prospects: one group made of the bankers and their bond holders (the financial class), is doing rather well because, by not having to pay off its debts, its wealth – the money to make more money – is being maintained. The other group, the rest of us, find our wealth is disappearing because we are paying off not only our debts but theirs as well. Our welfare, pensions and pay are all being cut in order to appease the bond holders, while the banks and the money they owe us, seems to have almost disappeared from the story altogether. (read more)

Best part is that the 700 billion, no questions asked, TARP bailout was just the tip of the iceberg as the Federal Reserve (again playing God with the US economy) gave out an additional 16 trillion to their close buddies. Notice that the Federal Reserve is a private bank and thus has no oversight. They can do whatever they want to the economy and NEVER have to face elections for this actions, i.e. no consequences! If you have access to a money printing machine and couldn't get in trouble no matter what you did, would you print yourself up some cash? If you could give this money away with no consequences would you give some to your friends? It's just paper, after all. 

Extracts for emphasis from the above video timeline

1987 The new Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, is a believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy -- free-market capitalism means no regulations, no government intervention. Read more

In other words, Alan Greenspan is following UN-CONSTITUTIONAL CAPITALISM

{Constitutional Capitalism} I'm sure there's a place for privatization. The problem with the "Government" messing up projects, for example roads, is corruption. Keep in mind that the government - according to the US Constitution - is for "we the people". When the government is not working for "we the people" we have to put it right. Giving it all to greedy corporations, is just silly... and unconstitutional.

Related: 4 Videos Under 7 Minutes Illustrating Congress In Full

Current "Legend" Series...

Next "Legend" Series...