ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Hold fast on 'cliff,' GOP

| Friday, Nov. 23, 2012, 8:57 p.m.

Republicans are being blamed for not compromising on the impending “fiscal cliff.” But is compromise the correct plan of action?

We are at a point similar to that prior to the Civil War, when Americans had to decide on slavery. There was no room for compromise because slavery was either right or wrong.

Now we are faced with a similar choice between capitalism and socialism, two completely incompatible economic systems.

Capitalism allows individual business owners and consumers to decide which products and services should be available by the millions of buying and selling choices they make daily in the marketplace. It is a bottom-up-driven system. Capitalism is based on the idea that individuals are capable of making their own decisions.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a top-down system in which government officials decide which products and services should be available.

Socialism is characterized by excessive regulations, high taxes, centralized power and less individual freedom. This system distrusts individual decision-making and defers to experts or elites.

It seems that the best course of action at this point is to face up to the decision before us and critically analyze the consequences of both systems. Compromise just means Republicans give in to more socialism, which is a recipe for disaster.

The answer to this fiscal impasse is not compromise but informed decision-making. Do we Americans have the courage and wisdom to do this?

Dave Majernik

Plum

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me