A day in the life of Joe Republican.

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,030
PDX
I am not sure if any of you have run across this on the Intraweb, but I found it worth posting...FWIW

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up and fills his coffee pot with water.
The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

Joe takes his daily medication. His medications are
safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to
insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's
medical plan because some liberal union workers fought
their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe
gets it too.

He prepares breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is
safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for
laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

The air he breathes is clean because some
environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop
industries from polluting our air.

He takes the subway which saves him considerable money
in parking and gas because some fancy-pants liberal
fought for affordable public transportation.

He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits,
retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some
lazy liberal union members fought and died for these
working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards
because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to
join the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed,
he'll get a worker's compensation or an unemployment
check because some stupid liberal didn't think he
should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Joe's bank deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC
because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's
money from unscrupulous bankers.

Joe has a Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and a
below-market federal student loan because some elitist
liberal decided that Joe and the government would be
better off if he was educated and earned more money
over his lifetime.

Joe drives a car which is among the safest in the
world because some America-hating liberal fought for
car safety standards.

He visits his boyhood home. His was the third
generation to live in the house financed by Farmers'
Home Administration
because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The
house didn't have electricity until some big-government
liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and
demanded rural electrification.

His father lives on Social Security and a pension
because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made
sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe listens to a conservative radio talk show. Joe
agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals
ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who
believes everyone should take care of themselves,
just like I have."
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
I laughed, I cried. This is a great piece.

I wonder how many that say government is too big, and putting its nose where it shouldn't; be willing to give up on so much that the "liberal's" fought for.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Chip NoVaMac said:
I wonder how many that say government is too big, and putting its nose where it shouldn't; be willing to give up on so much that the "liberal's" fought for.
Combine the population NOT living in California, Alaska, Nevada, Washington State, Oregon, the New England states, Arizona and New Mexico. Then extract 90% of the non-white voters and 60% of the women and what's left is Joe... even if he's registered Democrat. The middle of this country is Conservative. Conservatives will vote Republican this fall unless something brilliant is done to convince them that Bush is ambiguous and/or incredibly, undeniably dishonorable.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
thatnks for the 2 amusing reads...the first because of being cynical and the other for picturing the United states of Lawye...err.. i mean American nicley

have you noticed how often the word 'lawsuit' or 'sue' appearsin your version ?... am i the only one who finds that amusing ? ;)
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
stell -- what evidence is there that people can't afford cars? isn't car ownership at an all time high?
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
zimv20 said:
stell -- what evidence is there that people can't afford cars? isn't car ownership at an all time high?
I find it very funny, and very sad at the same time. I'm sorry to say we seem to be becoming more and more like this in the UK. Everyone is scared of their own shadow in case some idiot decides something is someone elses fault, and wants to sue them!

Schools are terrified of taking kids on school trips, allowing them in the swimming pool etc. Just in case the dumb ass kid manages to hurt themselves and the pathetic parents decide that it's not their dear, sweet, childs fault for not looking where they're going, but the fault of the teachers for not holding the kids hand every step of the way! :eek: :rolleyes:

...really bugs me...
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,030
PDX
Stilliform, considering, I have to ask what your opinion is of the Bush Administration's stance on law-suits...

As for the truth of my initial posting:

The truth is in the rhetoric,not the letter (as often is the case)...you'd think these days that would be easy to understand...
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
Stelliform said:
What can I say, I am a computer guy, but most of my clients are lawyers. After working in their offices most everyday, all I see are legal ramifications and liabilities. I think the system needs some tweeking, but our legal system does have a few good attributes.
i had 2 courses on university about such things (how our system here works but mainly about legal situation with computers etc.) well the professor wasn't very gently in his use of words over the US legal system...especially how the US courts can 'make' laws...and of course the lawsuits with their absolutly ridioulus high demands of compensation payments

doesn't the US have the highest amount ( per capita ) of layers
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Stelliform said:
He takes the subway which saves him considerable money
in parking and gas because businesses got together and
created a plan with the city so that their employees
could save money on the commute and the businesses could
avoid relocating their companies from downtown.
Like that's bloody likely! When have you known businesses to line up to pay MORE to help their employees out? Not to mention paying money for city services voluntarily? How many businesses have eagerly gone out and paid for improving an intersection, or adding needed parking when they DIDN'T need a permit of some kind from the city?

Government is the place for this kind of decision that costs and benefits everyone to take place. Businesses (and other affected groups) certainly have their place at the table, but don't count on them to push the issue.
 

wwworry

macrumors regular
Mar 23, 2002
235
0
so first someone dies because of the bad bacon then we all benefit
except the owner of the bacon factory changes the name and sells more bad cheap bacon
and we have to wait the five years the law suit takes before we get good bacon
and we have to have a lawsuit for every bacon factory

and people that can't afford to initial outlay for a well go thirsty or they pay inflated prices to a private water concern with questionable water

What a lovely world! regulation by litigation and only after the fact

why not sell the drug now that has harmful side-effects seen only after years of use?

who is going to pay for the long term study that reveals the side effects - certainly not the poor schlub who is sick and getting sicker because of the drug

in practice the libertarian ideal has a LOT of problems

and Stelliform if you look at the history of public transportation, which in New York at least, was initially private, you'll see why it became public. Though the public conversion was not without corruption and graft neither was the private version. THe public version has worked remarkably well.

You might also want to look at the privatization of British rail and the marked increase in rail accidents.

------------------------

There is a history here. Look at the US pre 1900 for your ideal land without government regulation. Why is it that there was a push for public water supplies, public safty regulation and food regulation? Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Stelliform said:
I am not familiar with their stance, however my stance is that medical lawsuits against Dr's should be capped. (After all they are only human and they are going to make mistakes.).
But capping medical lawsuits' rewards would have the inevitable side effect of capping compensation for malicious doctors, too. I had a doctor when I was a kid who repeatedly and deliberately misdiagnosed and mistreated me for my asthma because he was an egomaniac.

Proper care could have reversed my condition. As it is, I stand likely to lose years of my life, not to mention the quality of life issue.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Stelliform said:
He takes the subway which saves him considerable money
in parking and gas because businesses got together and
created a plan with the city so that their employees
could save money on the commute and the businesses could
avoid relocating their companies from downtown.

...
The original post I think is far from the truth. My post is also far from the truth. The truth probably lies in a mixture of the two posts.
Yeah, like:

the natural effect high population density and high car ownership leans to chokingly thick traffic congestion which leads to political pressure on the city to solve the problem and if the city is lucky and can come up with the funds, they'll get a (initially VERY unpopular) public transportation system that is so thorough and well designed that the citizens will no longer need to own a car, let alone be required to sit in stopped-up traffic everyday just to get to work.

However, more commonly, politically safe (and cheaper) stopgap solutions (adding more lanes, bypasses or bus routes) are employed which may temporarily alleviate the problem but inevitably end up worsening the congestion and air pollution. Riding a bike to get around goes from being an option to tantamount to playing Russian Roulette.

So Joe most likely sits in his car for half an hour to an hour everyday staring at the back of the car in front of him as he slides up and down the flow of traffic at 5mph.
 

sorryiwasdreami

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2004
698
0
way out in the sticks
Stelliform said:
But I believe it is fear of...
This is how many Americans live their lives - in fear.

Why? Because upper conservatives have domestically terrorized America on almost every level, and it is evident in your alterization of the original poster's prose.

Fear breeds control. Control = power.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
I have to admit, blackfox's version sounds more like the way life has developed in America over the last sixty years or so than the lawsuit-laden alternative version. Thanks for sharing, blackfox. Good stuff.

wwworry makes an excellent point about not having to wait until something bad happens (and then filing a lawsuit) before doing the right thing.

A few weeks ago, I read Molly Ivins' "Bushwhacked", and she told stories of companies that poisoned people with tainted food or that wouldn't clean up toxic waste, largely because the government under Bush is no longer on their backs. It seems to me that fear of lawsuits doesn't motivate companies that much, partially because many don't have the resources to sue, partly because the Bush administration seems bent on tort "reform" which would limit your right to sue.

As an aside: knowing Ivins' acid wit, I was expecting her book to be something wry and amusing, along the lines of Jim Hightower. However, I have never read a book that was more angry-making in my life. If even a quarter of this country were to read some of the stuff that's in her book, Bush would be out on his can in a hurry.

'Course, they're too busy reading "Unfit for Command".
 

wwworry

macrumors regular
Mar 23, 2002
235
0
sorryiwasdreami said:
This is how many Americans live their lives - in fear.

Why? Because upper conservatives have domestically terrorized America on almost every level, and it is evident in your alterization of the original poster's prose.

Fear breeds control. Control = power.
I think that's reading a bit too much in Stelliforms post.
To me it just seems as if libertarians see some sort of pre-regulatory golden age without actually looking into the conditions in pre-regulatory eras.

To claim that similar things(poison water, price fixing, banking malfeasence, etc.) would not happen again must be to believe that people have become suddenly a lot more honest than they were 100 years ago. At the same time the libertarian/conservative will claim that people have become degraded because of all the "social engineering". It is contradictory.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
the libetarian fallacy: the revenue gained from cutting corners is greater than the revenue gained from increased market share from doing things right.

attribution: me. just now.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
zimv20 said:
the libetarian fallacy: the revenue gained from cutting corners is greater than the revenue gained from increased market share from doing things right.

attribution: me. just now.
or:

why put off honest business until tomorrow when you can profit from a scam today?
 

Krizoitz

macrumors 65816
Apr 26, 2003
1,081
389
Tokyo, Japan
The difference is Blackfox's version is supported by reality. All those things happened.

Stelliforms version on the other hand is what conservatives would like you to believe how things would work out, but history has shown that it won't.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
zimv20 said:
the libetarian fallacy: the revenue gained from cutting corners is greater than the revenue gained from increased market share from doing things right.

attribution: me. just now.
The other great libertarian fallacy: People can be trusted to act correctly in the absence of government regulation. But I need my guns because you just can't trust people.

Well, I guess that's more of a contradiction than a fallacy... :p
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
mactastic said:
The other great libertarian fallacy: People can be trusted to act correctly in the absence of government regulation. But I need my guns because you just can't trust people.

Well, I guess that's more of a contradiction than a fallacy... :p
An unfortunate number of Libertarians seem to function on a few basic Maxims that add up to a kind of bratty, selfish mentality that makes Neocons look sympathetic:

1. Why should I care what happens to you?

2. I should be able to not have to pay taxes at all.

3. I should be able to have any gun I want, anywhere, any time, under any conditions with utter impugnity, loaded, without any licensing or registration of any kind.

4. Trust is for the weak.

5. Aid is for the worthless.

6. Regulation, particularly in ethics, standards and accountability are a waste because the market does all of that anyway.


I find these to be the single most loathsome individuals I've ever had the displeasure of realizing I couldn't legally euthanize.
 

wwworry

macrumors regular
Mar 23, 2002
235
0
but you have to admit that almost all the product and food safety regulations that we have today happened because of legislation and not litigation.

What you are asking us to believe is that the threat of litigation has a greater deterent effect than the surety of litigation.
You might get sued (libertarian)
vs.
you will get sued or criminally prosecuted (regulated)
 

wwworry

macrumors regular
Mar 23, 2002
235
0
not solely but overwhelmingly mostly... (this could go on forever I apologize)

but what about dumping your used motor oil down the sewer, whose going to sue you for that? The only basis they would have for suing you is the law and studies that show that used motor oil is bad for the system.

The other thing is that plenty of people break the law but as many people break civil contracts etc. If there was not a fire code do you think as many people would stick to it?

Fire code: Let's say there was no fire code and a house burnt down. The builder could claim that it was the homeowners fault that the house next door burnt down. However if there had been 2 hour fire walls between houses the house next door would not have burned down. Fire codes lower costs for insurance. Fire codes are reliable regular standards that actually save money for builders because they are predictable.

and going back to the original post can you find (though I do not expect you will and neither would I) one instance where it was not a "liberal" advocacy group that effected the change.

On the other hand if you want to give up on this thread I will too.
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,105
234
I see nothing about stella's post that was libertarian aside from the legal stuff.

A libertarian would've been against social security, for instance.

Also, all those job "benefits" were because of the tax code and the frozen wages of WWII. If you make enough money to buy your own health care, you're in a higher tax bracket and can afford less than those crappy HMO's the company offers.

Also, the FDA's Delays have been viewed by some to have killed way more people by criminalizing drugs than testing them. Even if Drug companies were 10% faster than the FDA, millions more people would be saved by the expedition of drug releases as would be harmed by them.

For instance, there was a heart drug released recently said to save 18,000+ lives a year in the US alone. The problem is, it was delayed 10 years by the FDA so that means 180,000 people lost their lives in the testing process--waiting for the drug to be released. If the FDA weren't required to release a drug, it's likely the tests would've been completed to the satisfaction of the pharmaceutical company's legal department at least 2 years sooner.

Moreover, the FDA forces drug companies to spend over $1 Billion per drug abiding by FDA regulations alone, forcing them into a government-enforced monopoly that only gigantic corporations can get into.

But corporate welfare is OK, just as long as it's for safety, right? :mad:
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Those self-same drug companies would have no patent protections if it wasn't for the government's enforcement of intellectual property laws. So I guess government power is okay so long as it protects the interests of corporations, right?