TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

GENTLE AND KIND.

The notion that "all men are created equal" rings a resounding bell throughout, and to all and sundry in America today. As the nation stands on the verge of a recovery from its economic woes of the past, we find politicians who are determined to stop the wheels of progress toward that lofty goal; by sticking to dogma, which in itself is not a bad thing, unless it is done radically, and without a modicum of compassion for other people, as one Congressman seems to be doing.

As the economic plans are laid out by both sides, to fight a humongous deficit, and to bring about a budget that will work for a better fiscal state of correctness, nationally, of course; we find one set of argument on the side of money being the focus of attention, and another set of opinion, on the other side, leaning favorably on consideration for the impoverished and the disadvantaged; a cause which is being advocated by President Barack Obama.

In other words, the two pictures that have been presented just these past few weeks, are from two different perspectives, although they both aim to extricate America from the grip of disaster or what everybody deems catastrophic, in terms of future prosperity that the people deserve to have and to expect for their children and grand children. They are also showing that the mores that must be prevalent equally among all citizens seem to be embraced now only, even if superficially, by a large section of common people; and that the affluent share narrowly in them (mores), and only to a certain extent; among whom are our influential Congressmen (and Congresswomen)."No sympathy for anyone; let's go get it straightened out,"; they say in private.

Others see mercy as tilting to one side; and if so, placing many of us at the whim and caprice of those in powerful places to do as they wish with our lives, by introducing bills on the floor of Congress that will dramatically be damaging toward even the weak and the fragile among us, meaning specifically, the sick and the elderly.

The word "cut" has been brandished so much over our heads, its use has become part of ordinary vocabulary in conversations going on in every household, as if it does not stand for anything else, except to save America's financial problems from getting worse. If so, then it does stand for something noble, and not for its usual tawdry meaning of causing pain. Thus, when you look deep down into it, the way it is being used in Washington D.C. these days, it stands for people inflicting pain and hardship on others, who are being targeted deliberately, and for no other reason, except that through no fault of theirs, they find themselves under unfortunate circumstances; making it to look like a case of Americans carrying out a dastardly act on fellow Americans.

If Social Security is "cut", people will die; if Medicare is cut, people will suffer, and if Medicaid is cut, many people's lives will be affected in any number of negative ways; if education funding is cut, children will lose many opportunities, because they lack preparation for them; and yet, for the sake of financial responsibility, as being the excuse, these programs are being threatened. They must be cut, irrespective of the outcome. They must be "cut" at the expense of the poor, the needy and those who can least afford to fend for themselves in society. It is a necessity to cut it to combat the spiraling national debt; they tinglingly tell us. However, the question is, does reality make all that possible?

The word "spending" too is being tarnished quite a great deal lately; and we see that the tea party movement will not be gaining momentum in any way, if it is not used as a tool to be critical of the Obama administration. Its membership by and large believe that taxpayer money is being distributed behind their back, particularly, to people who do not look like them; and that President Barack Obama is responsible; he is the one doing the distribution; and so his name has become synonymous with spending. They never forget to mention his "economic stimulus."; however, they never say what he is spending the money on.

We all are aware of the two wars that he has inherited; and soon, there will be another one to get American resources to become involved in, if he is not careful. National security, the Military, The State Department; and the current upheavals in the Middle East, etc. Lavish spending? They all cost money; don't they?

When there is a picture on FOX News television, showing people lining up to receive money in Detroit, that alone has to be enough to fuel people's anger; and as such, attracting hate groups to come together under one umbrella; and the tea party movement seems to be at the head, as well as at the bottom of all that anger. There is so much rage among them, you can "cut" it with a knife.

Yet, that distribution portrayal is not at all true. The actual reason being that his economic policies cover a wide range of topics; managerial and otherwise, from dealing with a frail car making industry to the country's infrastructure, with bridges and tunnels coming apart and falling down. There is so much urban blight, rural decay and common disrepair all around. He, as President, must have a plan that is extensive and effective to deal with them. Without that the transportation industry will be crippled, and it will come to a screeching halt; unemployment will become worse than it is now; and on and on; but because of these same policies that the stimulus money is being directed to undertake, there are signs and indications that things will change, if they are given the chance. The stimulus spending, directly or indirectly, is saving jobs, as well as creating them. In other words, his policies are working, in spite of all the obstacles that are being put in his way.

Call it deficit spending, stimulus spending, or whatever; it is not going to waste, as we have been asked by media and political pundits to visualize. It is always the end product that really counts; but do they want you to realize that? I doubt it.

Many States are using it to prop up sensitive programs; and in some places, there will not be any economic stability or growth, if it is not for what some people assume to be "a gigantic bail out venture" that is being put in place to assist them to emerge from the state of affairs that they find themselves in; although they are collectively considered to be comparable to the Great depression of the 1930s, that help is not being appreciated in some circles. Yet, even Wall Street continues to benefit from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program); so, what else is new?

Truly, that is where taxpayer money is going; and the people who are liable to know better, and to help in espousing the facts of the matter are Members of Congress, of which Republican Paul Ryan is prominent. However, reactionary attitude, insane loyalty and party affiliation compel him to disregard the truth; and as a result, he attempts to implement something so drastically different, which will do nothing but hurt many people, just because they are poor.

His plan involves the curtailment of almost all federal government subsidies and social entitlements. By slashing them, he will save $6 Trillion Dollars over ten years; and also save posterity from paying for the mess being created by present day people. The whole thing is pure hype and obstinate rhetoric; and he knows it. At least, the President's plan is more humane and practical; and he (Mr. Ryan) cannot compare his (plan) to it. The twain shall never meet (I am paraphrasing "Never shall the twain meet."; so forgive me, please).

That brings me back to "all men" being created equal; and do not get me wrong, for I do believe that is as factual as night and day; but must we, as individuals, think so differently; with some given to callousness, and others kind-heartedness? Must we be so insensitive and close eyes to other peoples' needs, or be gentle and kind to our fellow men? Congressman Paul Ryan tends to go with the former; but I can see President Obama holding on to his guns and choosing the latter.

That is how I see things; how about you?