Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some 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 call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time. Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He 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 electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) 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”. http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_the_life_of_joe_middle-.html
This is the same kind of email pap that the liberals complain about when the Right does it. As with some of those emails, this is just as ridiculous.
Minimum water quality? The Democrats used this "Bush puts arsenic iin people's drinking water" issue when in fact, the standard that Bush supported was perfectly safe (with a few parts per BILLION more arsenic, harmless) and cost water treatment plants less, which means less costs for CONSUMERS. The FDA is an unneccessary bureaucracy that is the biggest reason why vaccines are hard to find and why drugs are so goddamned expensive. The hoops drug companies have to jump through to get drugs approved adds millions onto the cost. Some of you say "so you'd have unregulated drugs?" Well, we already do. The FDA is powerless to stop the thousands of snake oil cures for weight loss, impotence and hair loss out there. We could have an Underwriter's Laboratory run by private companies to safely and QUICKLY approve drugs. News flash: that is the private employment market at work, not a bunch of lazy union schmoes who made that happen. If someone is a valuable employment commodity, companies compete for their services. And most workers are non-union in this country. Unions have long since outlasted any relevance and are just a tool for the Left. As for those brilliant regulations, we waste billions on inspectiors who can't seen bacteria with their naked eyes inspecting meat when irradiating meat would take care of that. But no, we couldn't do that, the leftist safety nazis would be up in arms. It would make too much sense. Just like the left's reaction to genetically enhanced food. The problem with these regulations is that they cost corporations billions to comply with regulations often of dubious value. Right now, our skies and waters are cleaner than ever, yet leftists seek even more harsh environmental standards. It's like someone once said about learning guitar: to get to be 90 percent of the player you want to be is not that hard, but when you want to get that other 10 percent of ability, it is much more difficult than the original 90 percent. We're at 90 percent now and yet we want to force companies to spend billions more to get closer to that elusive 10 percent? Transportation subsidies waste monies that could put into highway construction, relieving gridlock. The average lib doesn't believe that people should be free or independent, but they should be packed tightly into cities under strict bureaucratic controls (no wonder they hate the suburbs with their "urban sprawl" buzzword) and forced to ride public transportation. They want me to have to pay for it even though it is inefficient. It's all about power because if they control your transportation, they control your vote. Fought and died? Give me a damned break. The FDIC is a boondoogle, plain and simple. The problem with all of these wonderful govt. regulations that liberals love so damned much is the fact that they seek a perfect society without car wrecks, without bad meat (still happens) and without bad shampoo (ditto above). Anything made by humans is destined to be imperfect and to seek such perfection is illogical. Airbags, for one example, have been proven to kill shorter women and infants in the front seat, yet the lefties insist I explode my way to safety! But if I seek to deactivate them, I'm threatened with all sorts of legal doom and gloom. The only way to regulate anything is to allow the market to take hold. If a car is unsafe, the word will get out and market forces will take care of safety. Profit motive is the only true motivator. This is just one, sick, putrid lie. But I'm glad you liberals love to read this stuff to make yourselves feel good about yourselves.
For sick, putrid lies, you will have to see everything above what you wrote here. I took you off ignore because after Jeff et. al. called out the D&D, you seemed to improve for a short time. Buh-bye.
bamaslammer, for my own amusement, please justify why; .... this ought to be good. Also, please direct me to the scholarship that proves that all markets are perfectly efficient in the real world, and that disproves, conclusively, the "race to the bottom" scenario. Thanks.
I donno... i've been to countries that don't regulate enviornmental laws as well as the U.S. (china and mexico) and the air and waters are ABSOLUTELY foul. the job conditions are horrible and the pay sucks. the problem with thinking that profits will self regulate a company is that companys are like people. you have the majority of them that are law abiding and will follow the law to the minumimal degree, in fear of getting caught. sorta like getting audited. your chances, if you don't make it too blantant, are favorable of not getting caught, but most people don't cheat on their taxes anyways. I guess your argument is that the liberals have already done their job and wants to go farther beyond rationality, but my experience is that if you don't keep it up (maintaince effort), conditions will tend to fall. while i don't need the air to be 100 percent pure, it's good that someone is pushing for it, because there's always an opposing force pushing the other way. with drugs and the envoirnment, i'd rather not have an see-saw effect where someone has to die first before action is taken.
I guess my only question is can liberals really claim the credit for all of these accomplishments? I'm for most of 'em. I'm not against most of 'em. I'm not all that liberal! The term "liberal" as a political designation is not all that old. It would seem that much of these pleasantries predate the "liberal" assignation. Where's Mango when you need him?! He's c-o-m-i-n-g...
Now most people say they are for those things. At the time they were being passed Republicans and conservatives were trying to stop them. It's kind of like Apartheid in S. Africa. Everyone is against it now. But at the time we had people like Ronald Reagan trying vetoing sanctions. Luckily congress was able to override his veto and Apartheid is gone. I'm sure most people who are conservative Republicans today are happy that Apartheid is gone. But at the time the ANC was called communist, and passing sanctions would hurt big business etc.
Now most people say they are for those things. At the time they were being passed Republicans and conservatives were trying to stop them Very true. Another favorite Republicans opposed the social security system, but Roosevelt had a huge majority of Democrats and got it thorugh. For years the Repubs have tried to act like they support the system but when they get in power and get cocky their true beliefs come out. Same with the misguide Dubya and the environment and public education and so forth. Giddyupp, note the original post did not say that Joe Republican didn't like the safety and comfort he had, just that he had no idea where these benefits came from.
Michael Moore weighs in on the subject. *********Op/Ed - USATODAY.com The GOP doesn't reflect America Tue Aug 31, 6:11 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo! Michael Moore, Filmmaker Welcome, Republicans. You're proud Americans who love your country. In your own way, you want to make this country a better place. Whatever our differences, you should be commended for that. But what's all this talk about New York being enemy territory? Nothing could be further from the truth. We New Yorkers love Republicans. We have a Republican mayor and governor, a death penalty and two nuclear plants within 30 miles of the city. New York is home to Fox News Channel. The top right-wing talk shows emanate from here - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly among them. The Wall Street Journal is based here, which means your favorite street is here. Not to mention more Fortune 500 executives than anywhere else. You may think you're surrounded by a bunch of latte-drinking effete liberals, but the truth is, you're right where you belong, smack in the seat of corporate America and conservative media. Let me also say I admire your resolve. You're true believers. Even though only a third of the country defines itself as "Republican," you control the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and most state governments. You're in charge because you never back down. Your people are up before dawn figuring out which minority group shouldn't be allowed to marry today. Our side is full of wimps who'd rather compromise than fight. Not you guys. Hanging out around the convention, I've encountered a number of the Republican faithful who aren't delegates. They warm up to me when they don't find horns or a tail. Talking to them, I discover they're like many people who call themselves Republicans but aren't really Republicans. At least not in the radical-right way that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and Co. have defined Republicans. I asked one man who told me he was a "proud Republican," "Do you think we need strong laws to protect our air and water?" "Well, sure," he said. "Who doesn't?" I asked whether women should have equal rights, including the same pay as men. "Absolutely," he replied. "Would you discriminate against someone because he or she is gay?" "Um, no." The pause - I get that a lot when I ask this question - is usually because the average good-hearted person instantly thinks about a gay family member or friend. I've often found that if I go down the list of "liberal" issues with people who say they're Republican, they are quite liberal and not in sync with the Republicans who run the country. Most don't want America to be the world's police officer and prefer peace to war. They applaud civil rights, believe all Americans should have health insurance and think assault weapons should be banned. Though they may personally oppose abortion, they usually don't think the government has the right to tell a women what to do with her body. There's a name for these Republicans: RINOs or Republican In Name Only. They possess a liberal, open mind and don't believe in creating a worse life for anyone else. So why do they use the same label as those who back a status quo of women earning 75 cents to every dollar a man earns, 45 million people without health coverage and a president who has two more countries left on his axis-of-evil-regime-change list? I asked my friend on the street. He said what I hear from all RINOs: "I don't want the government taking my hard-earned money and taxing me to death. That's what the Democrats do." Money. That's what it comes down to for the RINOs. They do work hard and have been squeezed even harder to make ends meet. They blame Democrats for wanting to take their money. Never mind that it's Republican tax cuts for the rich and billions spent on the Iraq (news - web sites) war that have created the largest deficits in history and will put all of us in hock for years to come. The Republican Party's leadership knows America is not only filled with RINOs, but most Americans are much more liberal than the delegates gathered in New York. The Republicans know it. That's why this week we're seeing gay-loving Rudy Giuliani, gun-hating Michael Bloomberg and abortion-rights advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites). As tough of a pill as it is to swallow, Republicans know that the only way to hold onto power is to pass themselves off as, well, as most Americans. It's a good show. So have a good time, Republicans. It could be your last happy party for awhile if all the RINOs and liberal majority figure it out on Nov. 2.
A Day in the Life of Joe Elitist-snob Leftist Liberal? Every one bought with the blood of Republican & Democrat soldiers on a battle field.
Actually the label "liberal" has been around for quite awhile and at one time the Republicans were the liberals and many of these things were championed by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt (who if alive today would probably be considered a big time liberal). It sounds to me that your problem is with the term and not the items. I would ask you to look past the terms and instead on the motivation behind them. What this piece is really saying is that its easy to demonize collective interests when one doesn't fully realize the extent that they actually benefit from those interests.
Bammaslammer; The problem with your argument is that you believe that we've outlived the need for government regulations and unions. Well there were many people who said the same thing back around the turn of the 20th Century when the Progressive movement got going. I highly recommend you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle about that time to see why you should appreciate all of the things mentioned in this piece and why the profit motive alone isn't going to guarentee the type of public safety that you dismiss now. While I might agree with you that there are certainly better and cheaper ways to do things than what are done now profit motive isn't likely to provide a consistent enforcement. For instance while irradiation might be cheaper than inspectors its far cheaper to say you're protecting and not do anything to protect your food and history is replete with examples of people who do things like that to turn a fast buck. As a small businessman I gripe about regulations and taxes but I would rather have regulations and taxes than to take my chances with an unregulated food, drug and banking industry and I think most people would to.
