My Support Forums - View Single Post

Open Eyes · 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pachyderm

I make you uncomfortable, don't I -- the expression of my own fears about these people gets transmitted to you, and you think I must have "started this thread only to start an argument". You are right about me being "already on the defensive before anyone responded to the first post" -- I thought that was pretty clear. But what is the meaning of this? My own fears of the people that do not simply disagree with me, but how they disagree. The form in which these people express their ideas expresses their own fears, but fears whose sources they do not recognize -- and their fear gets transmitted to me. And it is hard for me, when made afraid, to cope with, to recognize the sources of their and my own fears, and manage them in any healing way.

I think I at least recognize some of what is happening; I do not think the people I am talking about are nearly as close to being consciously aware of the sources and meanings of their fears as I am. If I may express some praise of myself!

(((Patchyderm))),

I understand "why" you had a certain tone in your original post. It isn't just "you" either, I have noticed it in "many". And this is what our politicians have set up to happen. I noticed it in the way they campaigned and how Americans grew more and more confused and devided.

It is normal for "any" president to make an effort to bring a sense of calm to a country that is struggling. A speech has to bring on a sense of direction, some kind of unitedness, and motivation. Their speeches are professionally written and mulled over so that a sense of confidence can be directed toward a nation. Yes, there is always a vision that is conveyed, a vision that sounds hopeful and inspiring. It is also one of the highest levels of salesmanship there is.

When Romney got caught saying the 47% of the population on entitlements would not vote for him, I knew he was doomed. And I was right because of the percentage of votes he did get in this election. And that gave Obama a tremendous advantage and a new ground work plan was put into motion to pursue those that "want or need" assistance or at least feel that there is something there "just in case".

Once you give "anyone" a safety net or a provision of somekind or even a right, if anyone tries to "change" that right/plan/safety net, they are going to be considered a "threat" and will be "disliked".

Actually, the number of "dependants" now have increased "above" that origninal 47%. Our economy is really bad right now, and even if Romney did win, the path to any real kind of recovery is still going to be a huge challenge.

The reality is that Obama was elected to try to find a way to repair a country that has a lot of "deterioration" that isn't just Bush's fault, but more like a house that could not afford to be kept up so it almost needs to be torn down and completely "rebuilt". But the other problem with this is that there is already a lot of debt owed on this tear down.

I understand what Tim is saying here about the 1930's solutions that did seem to work, however our population has increased so much that that way of addressing our current economic situation is not sustainable. Hey, I sit here and I am in no way an economics major, not even close, but, I can see a boat where more than half the population is not rowing and the other half can't keep up with that problem. However, there seems to be a smoke screen between the two groups and the side that isn't rowing isn't recognizing that the part that is rowing is growing tired and thinking about how they too can get to "non rowing side" of the boat, or at least would like to know that they "can" get to the nonrowing part if they get to a point where they simply cannot row anymore.

Personally, I see our government sitting in the middle of the boat and I don't see how adding more to that government is going to increase the number on the rowing side of the boat. And the part of the boat that isn't rowing is making the boat lean alot. It "is" a tough situation and honestly "most people are really concerned" and because our political leaders are so far apart on how they look at the solutions, there is a lot of ways "fear mongering and resentments can take shape".

I personally pointed to one of the big reasons why so many end up on that nonrowing side that is never discussed by our politicians. I have spent years working amongst children and familes in different scenarios where I have been seeing some big problems for a long time. What I also see is that the way our technology has changed and the lack of the kind of jobs that can accomodate the social problems that I have been seeing has been on the decrease. The factory jobs that used to be there are almost gone and many of the jobs that used to provide for some of these people are now done by machines. Yes, we do have a big problem, because alot of these jobs are now overseas too.

I see Obama as a "humanitarian" and for " social justice" and for that he will be "popular". Yes, that speech did it's job at trying to provide comfort and alot of people are going to "want to hang onto that" and even defend it and "not want to hear anything to take away from that".

I also noticed that the devide is also very strong, the people that "are" rowing are going to view things differently from those that are not. However, the people that "are" rowing are getting tired and stressed and also want to see some kind of safety net there as well.

In my opinion, that speech had to bring some kind of calm to that very big issue. Sigh....I don't know how we are going to "maintain" that calm though if some calm was achieved. I can understand how you feel pachyderm, alot of people are feeling it and you are right, it is not about "disagreeing" it is about how that is taking place, and it has been troubled for quite some time now, I hear you.