Let me start with some facts that are generally accepted as accurate, in order to set the stage for my theory. According to Senator Bernie Sanders, "The richest 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million families combined." In addition, according to The Washington Post, "Inequality in the U.S. has grown steadily since the 1970s, following a flat period after World War II. In 2008, the wealthiest 10 percent earned almost the same amount of income as the rest of the country combined."
These people are real; they exist. Actually, probably much of the data necessary to come up with these statistics may be based on public records, including IRS filings. So in theory (and practice) you could actually make a list of the names of these people. More on this later...
While today there has been much discussion on reports hat president Obama has agreed to cuts on social security, medicare, and other social safety net-related expenditures in his negotiations with congressional Republicans, I believe that much of the criticism and derision about these reports is being misdirected, or based on wrong assumptions.
I fully recognize that what I'm about to postulate is an "ambitious" theory, but I nevertheless believe it is true. If so, then the President has no (practical) option other than to do what he's been doing, to the chagrin of his political base, and much of the country.
Three sources of information that have had an impact in the development of my theory are: Josh Kosman's book, "The Buyout of America"; 60 Minutes report on Credit Default Swaps (see video below); And the Oscar winning documentary "Inside Job."
And of course, one key influence in my thinking is Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" theory. But the shorter explanation can be found in George Carlin's three-minute "discussion" about "The American Dream" (see below).
So for the sake of brevity, I'm not going to get too deep into discussing the details about the reference sources I mention, and will get right to my conclusions.
I'm not going to get too deep on this either, other than to point out that the country is basically ruled (indirectly) by a wealthy plutocracy, which use certain institutions like the mainstream political parties (both, Republicans and Democrats), Wall Street, corporate think tanks, public relations firm, and the mainstream media to do their bidding.
Throughout the nation's history many historical figures (including Presidents) have commented on this political arrangement.
Power Structure
The plutocratic rule notwithstanding, there has always been a certain leeway, or flexibility to allow for a semblance of democracy, but always within the parameters allowed by the "owners" or the plutocratic elite.
Thus far this arrangement has worked. Obviously, it has been imperfect (especially for the citizenry), but it has allowed for a certain amount of flexibility within which the average citizen has been able to live with certain amount of dignity, and this in turn has allowed for the establishment of a middle class.
However, there is one very important aspects that characterizes plutocratic thinking; one that's hard for many people to understand and accept. Plutocratic elites prefer to rule over populations that are easily manipulated and exploited.
This is very important, because (in my opinion) this explains much of what we are experiencing today.
Within the parameters allowed by the "system" is that most of the social changes and progress beneficial to the average citizen has taken place. But there has always been certain stress and conflict between the interests of the plutocratic elite (which prefers to govern over easily manipulated and exploited population), and the progressives that advocate for the dignity and fair treatment of the slave class.
Again, plutocrats benefit the most when the average citizen is kept ignorant and living at a subsistence level. Any marked growth of the middle class is a net loss for the plutocratic ruling class. You can easily verify this assertion by looking at this graph. As the middle class continues its fast decline, the influence, power and wealth of the plutocratic elite has grown exponentially.
And as we move towards the complete collapse of the middle class, it stand to reason that the wealth and power of the plutocrats will increase accordingly. This concept is very important for people to understand, as it helps in making sense of a lot of the things we are experiencing today.
Explaining Obama's Actions
During the 2000's, and especially after 9/11, the plutocratic elite has been putting into place the infrastructure necessary for a complete and permanent power-grab based on the ultimate goal of dismantling the middle class.
During this time, and aided by the influence of their money and power, they consolidated their control of government, the media, and the economic and financial system.
And now they are about to execute their coup de grâce. Much of what you are seeing happening regarding the sham debt ceiling debate, privatization of public resources, curtailment of constitutional protections, etc., is related to this final power grab.
By the mid 2000's the plutocrats' bag men in Wall Street, aided by incredibly intelligent people in finance, science, and many other disciplines, had devised a highly sophisticated (new) financial system whereas certain disruptive events (or shocks) would result in a rapid flow of wealth and power to the top, at the expense of the population.
Again, I recommend people read Josh Kosman "The Buyout of America" to get a glimpse at some of the sophisticated schemes which I believe are being applied now to the entire country.
Enter Obama... I think Obama is a very smart man. I can't explain why he's doing what he's doing, including having dozens of Wall Street bankers (from organizations responsible for wrecking the economy) running his administration economic policies.
But I think that there is a possibility that at one point he became fully aware of his choices, and that awareness perhaps came about after him having access to information he didn't have before.
Here's the scenario... Everything is already in place for a full "shock-like" financial collapse, and remember, when and if this happens, all it will mean for the plutocratic ruling class is that they are going to have much more power and wealth.
So in essence with a "push of a button" they could cause a catastrophic financial collapse immediately, "just like that!" And to them, is no skin off their backs--at all.
So Obama has a choice. If he takes on the plutocratic elite out of conviction, and bravery, they could just, again, "push a button" and collapse the economy. This would immediately destabilize the entire governmental system as well, and create such panic and havoc that he would be rendered completely impotent to deal with the crisis. His presidency would be destroyed, and the people (the populace) would have been plunged into serfdom.
The other choice if for him to try to negotiate with the plutocrats in order to try to get some concessions in the form of less onerous exploitation of the populace.
In other words, it could be that "The System" is too big for any one man to take on.
Also, keep in mind that a lot of these people, in order to justify their world view, are influence by concepts related to "Social Darwinism", and even Eugenics. A lot of the conventional economic thought among their ranks has to do with "creative destruction", and business cycles, and up-and-down markets.
Many of them feel that by setting the stage for dog-eat-dog type of economy (for the lower 90% of the population), they will be able to squeeze more productivity, and profit for themselves. And they are right.
Again, I'm aware that this theory is very ambitious, and may be hard for many people to accept. But I'm convinced that if we "peel back the onion", the reality of the situation may be very close of my explanation. What do you think?
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------