As I type this, things are getting down to the wire and as onothing has been agreed uponf yet. Perhaps by the morning a groundbreaking deal will be reached and we will all be at ease again So, do you think there will be a deal? If there is a deal made, feel free to add to this thread as to who believe got the better end of the stick and who deserves blame for what has transpired.

Well! As far as I'm concerned, who to blame is easily answered - the Democrats and the Republicans. They are the ones with all the power! On another level, those who vote for them (looking at you, Charlie Brown!) time and time and time again are to blame. On a whole nother level, those who buy into the problem du jour are to blame. I mean really, why not just have the Dems and Reps come out and say that what they want is AUSTERITY by some other name. On no, gin up a crisis first... Fiscal cliff!!! pffft. Yes, contracting spending is the way out of a weak economy... everyone knows this. As for who gets the better end of the stick - 1) the Dems and the Reps 2) those who have the most to begin with and 3) everyone who is biding their time until a better crisis comes along!

Sometimes, searching for someone to blame is the wrong course. We have an innate desire to cast blame when bad things happen, even if they happen in an inevitable string of cause and effect. But blaming something other than an human never feels as good, does it?

There are too many variant causes of the current breakdown to target just one and say that it's the most influential. The mess is too complex. We need to stop voting political extremists into office. Obviously when our voting leads to a highly polarized Senate and House, less will get accomplished and more stalemates will occur.

It's curious listening to this rather faux debate after just reading Ralph Nader's book "17 Solutions". I'm not a particular Ralph Nader booster, but it seems to me that much of what he is saying is common sense, like ensuring all pay their fair share of taxes, including large corporations, being vigilant about civil rights, and reducing massive defense expenditures to a more rational level. Yet, according to his support at the polls, he seems to be seen as some sort of fringe, comic relief political candidate. There are other alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats out there, but they don't seem to get any traction. What's left on the agenda are two entrenched organizations who have both been mesmerized by laissez faire fantasies, and strongarmed by aggressive lobbyists. They do seem to have retained a sense of theatre though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

george knows

Fiscal Cliff?

How about a moral cliff:

http://www.booktalk.org/post111309.html ... ff#p111309

Pheidippides wrote:If there is a deal made, feel free to add to this thread as to who believe got the better end of the stick and who deserves blame for what has transpired.

They just reached something tentative here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Taxing the rich.

Reminds me of a great quote recently from Peter Schiff I read, which I quote from The Objective Standard Blog:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... eft-right/

Peter Schiff discusses in this video why the mob doesn’t have a right to steal his money, and he warns Americans about the continuing assault on the wealthy.

Peter Schiff said:

I have no doubt that the mob has the means to steal my money, the government has given them the means, we have destroyed the protections that were afforded [to] me by the constitution, and yes the mob does have the means to steal from me, but that doesn’t make it right. They do not have a . . . moral claim to my money.

etudiant wrote:It's curious listening to this rather faux debate after just reading Ralph Nader's book "17 Solutions". I'm not a particular Ralph Nader booster, but it seems to me that much of what he is saying is common sense, like ensuring all pay their fair share of taxes, including large corporations, being vigilant about civil rights, and reducing massive defense expenditures to a more rational level. Yet, according to his support at the polls, he seems to be seen as some sort of fringe, comic relief political candidate.

Ralph Nader... I'm reminded of a time I was sternly taken to task for choosing to not vote for Nader. The argument being, since I agree more often with Nader than with any of the other candidates I should, therefore, vote my conscience and reality be damned. Well that isn't surprising, if you don't vote for Nader when you're of the same mind you're morally deficient. Well then what does that make Nader? Anyway, yes we are morally deficient but that's not the reason I didn't vote for Nader. The reason was, he wasn't even a candidate! The election in question had but three candidates: Obama, McCain, and Bob Barr. So if Nader or his supporters feel entitled to a vote here's some advice: do the work required to make the ballot! Otherwise, you're just grandstanding regardless of how good you might sound. You are in fact a fringe, comic relief political candidate. Nader had been running for the presidency for 40+ years and couldn't even get on the ballot despite a large name recognition! I doubt he wants to be president. Yes, it's a stacked deck and oftentimes sound reasoning doesn't count for much but if the libertarians can make the ballot so should Nader or anyone else who is serious about the matter. The Democrats still blame Nader for Al Gore not becoming president. Yes, they do retain their sense of theatre!

Kevin wrote: Ralph Nader... I'm reminded of a time I was sternly taken to task for choosing to not vote for Nader. The argument being, since I agree more often with Nader than with any of the other candidates I should, therefore, vote my conscience and reality be damned. Well that isn't surprising, if you don't vote for Nader when you're of the same mind you're morally deficient. Well then what does that make Nader? Anyway, yes we are morally deficient but that's not the reason I didn't vote for Nader. The reason was, he wasn't even a candidate! The election in question had but three candidates: Obama, McCain, and Bob Barr. So if Nader or his supporters feel entitled to a vote here's some advice: do the work required to make the ballot! Otherwise, you're just grandstanding regardless of how good you might sound. You are in fact a fringe, comic relief political candidate. Nader had been running for the presidency for 40+ years and couldn't even get on the ballot despite a large name recognition! I doubt he wants to be president. Yes, it's a stacked deck and oftentimes sound reasoning doesn't count for much but if the libertarians can make the ballot so should Nader or anyone else who is serious about the matter. The Democrats still blame Nader for Al Gore not becoming president. Yes, they do retain their sense of theatre!

I may be a little off on my knowledge of US political process, but my understanding is that Nader did run in federal elections, about three times I think. My point is though, whether it be Nader or someone else, either starting their own party or attempting to sway existing organizations, there is at least the apparatus there to move the political discussion away from pro-business, capitalism as holy grail, gun in every belt principles. But when someone attempts this, they tend to be ignored, ridiculed, or characterized extremists, possibly dangerous ones. One has to ask why. You mentioned libertarians. One obvious difference between liberatarians and center-left social democrats is that the former would be much more likely to allow the business community a free hand in their wealth seeking. This suggests that the power wealth can bring to the political arena is impressive.

Mr A wrote:

Pheidippides wrote:If there is a deal made, feel free to add to this thread as to who believe got the better end of the stick and who deserves blame for what has transpired.

They just reached something tentative here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Taxing the rich.

Reminds me of a great quote recently from Peter Schiff I read, which I quote from The Objective Standard Blog:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... eft-right/

Peter Schiff discusses in this video why the mob doesn’t have a right to steal his money, and he warns Americans about the continuing assault on the wealthy.

Peter Schiff said:

I have no doubt that the mob has the means to steal my money, the government has given them the means, we have destroyed the protections that were afforded [to] me by the constitution, and yes the mob does have the means to steal from me, but that doesn’t make it right. They do not have a . . . moral claim to my money.

Look at the bright side Mr A. Americans are arming themselves faster than ever. Soon all Ms Rand afficionados will be able to fight off the greedy mob, using only their own resources- their skill at marksmanship, and their foresight in laying in sufficient supplies of ammo. Ms Rand would be smiling at such visions of self-reliance, I'm sure.