Democrats and Republicans, the old two man con?

Here is a theory of mine that I would like to share with you. I think the American people are being set-up, with one of the oldest tricks in the book, the two man con. I think at some point after the FDR presidency the wealthy powers-that-be got together to figure out how they could stop the scourge that is the American middle class. Using their money and influence they financed the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats and pulled the strings so that whoever was elected would be the candidate that would do their bidding.

Their first soldier was Richard Nixon who went to China to lay the groundwork for the mess we have now, the one where all of our manufacturing jobs are moving over there. After Nixon managed to engage himself in criminal activity, the American people wanted anyone but a Republican. What the proponents of plutocracy came up with was Jimmy Carter an inexperienced Georgia Governor from a peanut farming family.

President Carter did an incredibly poor job, especially when it came to handling the economy, it would almost seem that his policies help exacerbate the stagflation that lead to his ultimate defeat by super Republican, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan, a former B-movie actor turned puppet for the Republican party, did intentional and irreparable damage to social security, and drove the national debt sky high.

The gilded age he created was so great that he got his Vice President, George Bush, senior in for another term before the economy collapsed in in the late eighties and early nineties.

Then the proponents of plutocracy found Bill Clinton, who they assumed was another inexperienced Southern hick Governor this time from Arkansas. But, "Slick Willie" lived up to his nickname, and this Rhodes scholar was no hick by any means. He knew how to play ball like a Republican, so much so, one would wonder if he was a shill from the Republican party with his approval of NAFTA among many other very conservative policies. Also, thanks in part to the Internet economic bubble, he managed to even get elected for a second term.

The Republicans were not going to stand for three terms of Democrats. If they let this go on the United Stated could have the longest Democratic presidential run since FDR, and there was no way that was going to happen. The powers that be then stuck Al Gore with the unpopular Joe Lieberman which lead to a narrow defeat in Florida, by George W. Bush.

Bush appeared as clueless wonder, that relied heavily on his Vice President to make important decisions. Decisions that would ultimately lead to the financial mess we are in now. For his second term W. was virtually unopposed by John Kerry, another very conservative Democrat, that offered very little different from the Bush campaign, and therefore he was was easily defeated.

But W. who cared more about sending soldiers to the Middle East and sending jobs overseas did absolutely nothing to help the United States economy which had turned into one great Ponzi scheme.

Realizing that the no one in as single election term, Republican or Democrat could get the economy out the quagmire it had been placed in the purveyors of plutocracy knew that they had to get yet another inexperienced Democrat in office, to make sure that the Democratic party will look completely inept and they could have four years to find another Republican to at least appear to come to the rescue.

They found Barack Obama, who had about seven years of experience representing Illinois in the United States Senate, and that's it. Just as the powers-that-be have planned, he appears to be either taking no action or similar action that Republican president would have taken in reaction to the current economic crisis; like Nero, he just fiddles while Rome burns.

So there you have the basic pattern, aggressive Republican (Nixon) inept Democrat (Carter) aggressive Republican (Reagan & Bush), inept Democrat Bill Clinton (inept only in that he was a very economically conservative Democrat), aggressive Republican (George W. Bush, but it was really Dick Cheney), inept Democrat Barack Obama. Isn't there anyone else out there who thinks this pattern is not coincidence? Can we do anything to stop this? If we re-elect Obama will we get four more years of him doing next to nothing to further the economy along? Or will he be followed by another heroic looking Republican, who will pretend to be coming to save the day when he or she is actually just furthering along the destruction of the United States as we know it?

Government's answer to controlling spending: Layoffs and more layoffs

The Tea Party republicans are really making their voices heard, "We don't want to pay any more taxes, period!" Actually, it is more like we don't want to pay any taxes, but that's another story. The general politicians response on the federal, state, and local level is to have hiring freezes, pay freezes and now they are talking about layoffs, major layoffs.

Now, gee, with unemployment rates in many states at an all time high, do more layoffs really make sense? The government is still going to have to pay out unemployment for many former employees for who knows how long.

This is not a smart strategy. I am sure there is waste in many other areas of government that have nothing to with employee salaries and benefits, but they are not favorable targets like poor working class people.

Ages ago government jobs had to offer great benefits and pensions in order to compete with private industry. Now private industry jobs are disappearing faster than ever, and therefore government no longer wants to offer jobs with benefits to its workers. Instead of just laying off people indiscriminately, government should go to their workers' labor unions and ask them to grandfather their benefits, and make sacrifices in order to keep their jobs, and not even think about job cuts to contribute to the welfare rolls.

I recently heard a quote from some congressional committee looking to save money, that many federal employees are making six figure salaries and doing much better than their private sector counterparts. The reason federal workers in the DC area make so much money is because housing is so damn expensive, to quote former NY gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan, "The rent is too damn high!" Therefore they have to pay workers big salaries. Housing subsidies for government workers would be one way to justifiably lower federal workers salaries, but just making stupid comments like federal workers are making more than private sector workers is just ridiculous, and meant to get Tea Party yahoos all roused and riled up.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt created the Work Projects Administration, which actually created jobs for the many unemployed. This is what we need now, not Tea Party Republicans pushing their government shrinking agenda.

Laying off government workers is not a solution to our economic woes, it will just contribute to already out of control unemployment, and do little else. It is just another way the rich want to make sure that they don't have to pick up the bill through increased income taxes which is what they should be doing.