A CLASS WARFARE.

It would not be a mistake to indicate that the huge economic deficit confronting the Obama administration has sparked off a class war in American politics, if not in America itself.

The administration has made it quite clear that entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, must not have any significant reductions, because they were there to protect Senior Citizens, who were in the main poor. A great majority of the Democratic Party members in Congress agreed wholeheartedly with that idea.

Senior Citizens and the weak in society, comprising of families of working class and middle class people, were being pitted against the wealthy and powerful individuals, as well as businesses, companies and corporations, who would hold against any tax burdens meted out to them to close the budget gap. They have the backing of most Congressional Republicans, who have made "no tax increases" their battle cry.

If that scenario, of Democrats clashing with Republicans, over how the nation's fiscal problems should be resolved, did not suggest that a class warfare was taking place in America today, then no one could ever be convinced that anything else would. It was as clear as daylight that there were acute differences among the political leadership in this country.

However, let us assume that, on the one hand, the solution could come from cutting entitlement programs, which would leave a whole lot of people to suffer for lack if medical attention, and that could result in death, in some cases, or insufficient amount of food, in the form of three meals, that would not last through the day; while on the other hand, taxes were raised on those who could afford them, as well as other tax loopholes, which needed to be closed were closed, for those who took advantage of them (loopholes), to pay their fair share to bring about a healthy economy the country deserved; which would be better?

Which side would the average American prefer to be on, or would want to support, in terms of using any one of those two methods to fix the present financial crisis? Most would choose the latter rather than the former.

It takes David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, to give the impression that the die is cast; and to make fun of the serious negotiations going on in Washington, as he predicts, "that Obama will cajole his party into big-time compromises."; as he will agree to any deals that will bring the issue to an amicable conclusion, just to avoid a lengthy controversy.

From his tone of voice, (and everybody knows where he belongs); it is within his purview that a class warfare is evolving, as if it has not already started to evolve as we all know, where the Republicans are siding with the rich, (of which he is one, remember), and the Obama administration is caving in to their demands; to create a situation that will leave a large number of Senior Citizens in the cold, so to speak.

He goes on to say; "But that possibility is exactly why so many liberal Democrats are angry. They worry Obama is once again surrendering before he has even begun to fight." (CNN report, Sunday, July 10th, 2011).

He was obviously referring to another set of talks that took place in previous months, when Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to gain the upper hand. However, that should be an old story.

President Barack Obama has recently said that if the debt ceiling was raised for the U.S. to meet its financial obligations both at home and abroad, business confidence would return for investors to start investing in America again, and that would go a long way to bring the high unemployment level of 9.2% down.

That would be an ideal occurrence. The economy would be taken care of, and more companies would begin to hire more workers again. The financial markets would become more stable than they have ever been in a long time for a change. That should be what people must look forward to. A brighter future for all Americans.

Yet, some politicians were making the budget talks to slash the deficit and bring the overall spending down, a barrier for that to happen. They were inadvertently waging a class warfare, which would probably stop or farther slow down the already fragile economic growth many Americans were experiencing lately in its tracks; and that would not be in the best interest of the nation.

According to Gergen's article, the battle lines have been drawn, and there was no going back for both sides; and if that was the case, then it would be for ordinary people to decide on which side they empathized with.

Nevertheless, should there be a necessity for a class warfare; and if so, who really needed it, or who would benefit from it? That should be a moot point; shouldn't it?

When a nation was in a financial crisis, its leaders should set aside their political ideologies and fight together to resolve that problem; and not to fight against each other to make a bad situation even worse. For the sake of peace and unity, they were more likely to show leadership instead. That was what most Americans would like to see happening.

Voters would continue to watch as events unfold themselves in Washington D.C., in order to know how or whom to vote for in the 2012 general election.