ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on December 4, 2012

There should be no reason for it.

The class warfare that has reared its ugly head in the political arena some several months ago seemed to be still going on, and it underlie the present negotiations in whether the "fiscal cliff" should occur or not.

There was (and still is) such talks of socialism being introduced in the United States, but those complaining about the situation forgot that there was also fairness that should be part of any plan the government or the opposition introduced; and without that, nothing could be accomplished.

The U.S. economy has been synonymous with the free market, and the affluent, who have utilized it to the extreme to become wealthy and powerful have had it so good for so long that any change in its (economy's) existence to favor the majority of the people was labelled "socialism".

President Barack Obama has just finished canvassing the electorate in a fierce campaign with the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, and has won the 2012 presidential election for the second time; yet, he was not at liberty to implement his plan that he called "fair and balanced approach" to even things out in the economy for those, who voted him into power.

The National debt and deficits have been growing steadily for at least the past few years, due to the fact that the previous Republican government has left a staggering amount of work undone behind, with respect to two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have not been paid for and a sluggish economy that he (Obama) had to grapple with.

Now, his tax plan on the wealthy was not discriminatory in any sense of the word. It (plan) would stop the borrowing from China, the United Kingdom and Japan, and reduce the overwhelming deficits the country faced, leading to defraying the National debt in the long term.

To get the economy growing at the same time, he was synchronizing a tax cut for the middle class and the lower income group in society; and also by asking the wealthy to "pay their fair share in taxes", so as to deal with the financial crisis before the country effectively; but he was being opposed by the Congressional Republicans, siding with those to whom a tax hike was due, namely, the 2% of the population or the wealthy Americans.

That was the underlying factor of the looming "fiscal cliff", which would bring nothing, but disaster to the country. It would usher the economy into a recession that would increase the unemployment rate astronomically, due to the lay-off of thousands of workers, as a result; and people's lives would be turned upside down for no useful purpose.

The Republicans might be right about party ideology and be dogmatic to it; but was that going to help the country in any way? Should the American society be divided straight in the middle, with one side not caring about what happened to the other side? Should "class warfare" be the fate and heritage of the most freedom loving country the world has ever seen?

If not, then the "fiscal cliff" must be stopped by any means possible. The president's plan was (and is) an "all hands on deck" approach to America's financial problems. Let's go with it, gentlemen.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Clearly you are a socialist. And I am glad we have folks like you around. And even more glad you do not run things. The fairness doctrine would be wonderful if every one just loved each other.