8 votes

How a liberal looks at the world

Sometimes you have to step back and look how someone else looks at the world to see why the world is as screwed up as it is. I copied this comment out of the comments section on yahoo simply because it expressed a sincere belief that is 180 degrees from mine and would like everyone's thoughts on it. Please no name calling as that would not help. Unless its funny then thats okay.

a day in the life of joe "THE TEA PARTY MEMBER" republican--by john gray

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 FDIC 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".

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

how much better could Joe be?

I believe Joe would have everything that was mentioned but it would be done much more efficiently and thus cheaper.

Liberals and Conservatives like to only analyze the benefits of some government program but never the negatives. They also fail to see the long term effects of their policies.

Well water is better than

Well water is better than municipal. There's nothing added to it. The ground filters it. Medications are far from safe.

If medicine was not a monopoly, it would be better and cheaper, and insurance wouldn't be required to afford it. Insurance is just money-printing. Meat doesn't need regulation. Companies would make it in their best interest to keep customers by selling them non-tainted food.

Who reads ingredients on shampoo? Oh, and nowhere in the world are the amounts of ingredients listed. Blends of everything are trade secrets. The air he breathes is clean because pollution is a scam. Public transportation should be able to stand on its own profits, or not exist at all.

I don't need the FDIC to protect my money. I understand that putting it anywhere but in my immediate possession is dangerous. Does the FDIC protect against the collapse of the dollar?

Education of children is not society's problem, and college is a scam. Of course you make more money. It's done to pay back the debt taken out in the name of the public.

I don't need car safety standards. It's in the best interest of the auto manufacturers to make safe cars. I don't need to be forced to have set belts and air bags in my car, and I don't need laws forcing me to wear seat belts. It's my life, and a lack of seat belt or air bag can in no way affect anyone else if I get into an accident. Yeah, what a wonderful world...people forced to have electricity that don't need it. How caring of the liberals.

I don't need unions. Employers shouldn't be forced to hire anyone, and be forced to pay them a minimum. What you are worth is what you should be paid. Unions just encourage suck. I don't need a retirement safety net that's kept up by theft. I realize that I don't have enough talent to stand out and therefore never make much of myself, so will work until I drop dead. That's my problem.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Labeling is the force behind divide and conquer.

Liberal and Conservative have both lost their meanings, and both are on the wrong track. Way down the track. How do you change the word? You use media and their talking head morons to drive home the difference, or division, between this side and that side. Along the way they decide which "qualities" or attributes fall into which category. How often to you hear the media talk about "neo Cons"? You don't hear it very often if ever I'm guessing. The label Conservative is now held by what we would consider Neo Cons and RINO's. It's not right, nobody agreed with the change, it just happens because the media put it out there for the people to suck up and accept.

Now true small government conservatives are all considered "Tea Partiers" and potential terrorist. All the while, neo cons and neo liberals come closer and closer together at the tip of big controlling government.

"Ask not what you can do for

"Ask not what you can do for yourself, but what your country can do for you."

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

We disarm OURSELVES with liberal/conservative labelling

One of the top Mind tricks by which The Masters keep us forever enchained is by controlling the use (definition or lack thereof) of WORDS. We cannot rise above the words we use. Nobody can. Aside from the fact that most words are ill defined, is the fact that they are emotionally charged. Beyond THAT is the fact that ALL generalizations, nominalizations, etc. break down at their logical conclusions.

And of words (supposed concepts) most treacherous at the moment is left-right/ Liberal-Conservative/ Progressive-TeaParty. Getting us to go along with THEIR words lets our enemies define and control the battleground.

However you try to escape it, ALL the left-right paradigm defines is HOW the power of the State "should" be employed. Notably the left-right/ Liberal-Conservative doesn't ever really address the size and power of the State. It jive talks its way past the real questions of legitimacy.

A LOT of the supposed "liberals" out there are in agreement with most of us that the government is massively corrupt -- that Obama, Pelosi, etc. are, in fact, liars if not criminals. That the government has been purchased and is not doing what peaceable, decent people "want" it to be doing. There may be, or may seem to be, impassable divides on issues such as abortion or socialized medicine, but -- in fact -- these are NOT the central issue...at least not until the issue of government criminality and overreach has been addressed.

So WHY are we wasting our effectiveness and, in fact, furthering the problem (and making our Masters in Washington and Fascist corporations so happy) but FACILITATING the confusion within and without ourselves with use of corrupted words and concepts??

We should be looking with ways to reach common ground with people such as Lawrence Lessig and even the Occupy people, NOT fixating useless

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28


Well said.

I was doing some deliveries

I was doing some deliveries for my employer today and when I was driving around, I made an observation. I have driven through some neighborhoods with houses that blow my mind because prior to my current job, I would never have a reason to drive through such rich neighborhoods.

Today looking at an elementary school I observed they had 5 or 6 "portable" building for extra classroom space. Lets call em' what they are though, trailers. An elementary school was a trailer park, and down the road people live in mansions.

I would have no problem at all with people being stinking rich through hard work alone, no problem at all, I bust my ass everyday to provide for my family. When you are honest about it, what percentage of people are actually a hollywood movie going from rags to riches? 5%? 15%? It could not be a very high percentage, whatever it is.

There is nothing fair about the genetic lottery, whether it's good looks, special talent, or rich parents that hand you the keys to a profitable business. Some will say tough, life isn't fair, but then they will complain about how wrong it is if they get robbed, beaten, or what have you.

Cyril's picture

I see what you mean.

I see what you mean.

And Thoreau, specifically, nailed it, IMO :

It is the greatest of all advantages, to enjoy no advantage at all.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Good quote, first time I have

Good quote, first time I have heard it. I talk to old rich dudes and they are either very refined in their fake personas, or outright jerks. My coworker the other day was also mentioning most rich people were jerks as well.

Even jerks want to consider themselves "good people", which is why it is mentally necessary for them to rationalize that they have what they have through purely hard work and anyone else could too. Since others are poor, they must not work hard or be as smart. I think that if you are a good person, how can you not feel guilty having a pile of money and not helping people? You surely can't blame children, which are not allowed to work, for their poverty.

Back to your quote though, I told my coworker how sad it must be to be a rich jerk that has a wife that marries them for money, and doesn't really love them. How you have "friends" that just want to take what you have. It is hard work being a fake person.

Uhauls don't follow hearses.

A relative of a friend of mine was a banker.

This banker was the president of a fairly large bank in several cities in Michigan. He had everything he wanted, including piles of money, a vacation home nicer than most people's primary home, and many friends who invited him to nice dinners, fishing trips, golfing, hunting and the like. When he retired, he told the story about how he lost all his friends. When asked why, he replied that all the people that he thought were friends were really just trying to do business with the bank and when he retired, they didn't have use for the friendship any longer. He was rich with property but felt lonely, sad and empty. I remember at the time being thankful for having real friends that I wouldn't trade all his riches for.

I agree, that's a great quote.

That's a great story for

That's a great story for illustrating some of the realities of money. It's better to have a few great friends than many fake ones.

My younger brother got into some trouble when he was a punk teenager and he told me when he got locked up he quickly found out which friends were real ones, and it turned out to not be too many.

Do you know if that banker guy just grew old and bitter or if he changed his life and did positive things?

I haven't seen him in at least 10 years

He was a real nice guy back then. He seemed to have a good wife and a close family. I can't imagine him being bitter but who knows. I'm going to see his nephew in August so I'll ask about him then. It was a good lesson for me at the time. I got the sense that he would have traded some of his wealth to have his friends back. He was part of a social circle of wealth seekers, not true friends and he was sharing this new found wisdom with us.

I have an older brother that

I have an older brother that is a "wealth seeker", and we grew up in different households after I was 6 years old. I never know what to make of him other than that he has a perfectly crafted persona as if he had been organizing focus groups to give him feedback.

In ancient Latin, persona meant mask. The thing with masks though is that they have eye holes, and the eyes are the windows to the soul.

That was

very good of him. Much better than sulking and becoming bitter. I bet you he turned out much better and happier than you'd ever expect.

Who are you to label, with a

Who are you to label, with a broad and all encompassing stroke, a whole segment of society as one trait? This is just one of the problems. People are so judgmental, possibly envious, and love to label others because it makes them feel either superior or better about themselves. Try living your life without looking at others and putting them in some box. You can only control what you can control. People choose to be happy, people choose to be sad, miserable and full of envy.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No rebuttal, just a thumbs

No rebuttal, just a thumbs down? I don't really care to know your financial status, but I do stand by my conclusion that a person cannot be bathing in excessive luxury while still being a good person. It's not just poor actions to harm others that makes a bad person, it's inaction to help that makes one too.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I would like to have

I would like to have financial security enough to know that my family would always be able to afford a modest living standard, so yes on one level I am envious of having more money. I am by no means sad or miserable. I have a healthy handsome son, and a wife that is pretty enough that rich guys would pay a lot of money by the hour for a similar looking one (to pretend to like their old ass).

I do not envy owning a big yacht and 3 vacation homes. I would feel like a sack of crap knowing what good I could do with that money, rather than trying to impress people.

Rich people either proudly accept that they are selfish jerks (many brag about it), or they are engaged in cognitive dissonance if they want to think they are a good person.

Let me explain my reasoning:

If you spoil yourself with material excess when you could be finding ways to help people, and simultaneously hold the belief that you are a good person, it becomes necessary to find a way to rationalize your cognitive dissonance, and relieve the mental discomfort.

Since the person needs to find a way to arrive at the conclusion they are a good person, and they are clearly not doing enough to use their wealth in a way to help their fellow man, they have to justify why they have done what they have done. The solution for them is to blame the victim, such as they don't work hard enough like me, or to compare their own donations with those around them and believe their giving is good enough.

I can understand someone pointing at a lazy piece of garbage person that will not work, and just wants to take from others, but that is ignoring people that cannot help themselves like children.

If you can have a yacht and 3 vacation homes while children go hungry, you are a piece of human excrement plain and simple. I wish I had a bigger brush to paint that broad stroke because it is Absolutely true.

Hypothetically if I won $100 million in the lottery I would sit down with a couple different financial planners and calculate out how much money my family would need to be taken care modestly for the rest of our lives, and the rest of it would be put to use lifting up other people. I wouldn't let myself be consumed by the greed because I believe it to be a one way ticket to hell, and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night without pills to help.

So I take it you are either fairly well-to-do, or believe that you will be one day?

Cyril's picture

The quote is apparently from his journal, 1856 :

The quote is apparently from his journal, 1856 :


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

and it gets worse

one liberals response to mine (see below if you want)

You apparently have absolutely NO idea how drugs are developed or tested and who pays for most of that in this country. Or, that the reason people die from approved meds is because docs don't read the labels, they only listen to what drug reps tell the (and pay them kickbacks to prescribe).
You are correct about the violence and hatred perpetrated by governments. But, that has always been because a greedy few wished to co-opt the economic resources of others and used religion and "patriotism" to turn the poorer members of their society in to cannon fodder.
You are absolutely wrong about a central state not being capable of doing that which needs to be done: From a sociopolitical perspective, the MOST effective form of government is the benevolent dictatorship. But, when that government is corrupted the People lose their Civil Liberties and even their lives. So, how is that now different from the Free Market absolutist effect of creating the current ruling 0.25% being able to control OUR lives, yet not even remotely benevolently?
Finally, Libertarianism is a debunked sociopolitical philosophy whose own creator said was BS and disavowed it. Telling people that they can do whatever they want unless it harms someone else and that the injured party can go after them after the fact is BS. Tell us all now, how the little person is to go after the corrupt corporation that spews radioactive waste all over their neighborhood after the fact? UNLESS the government establishes laws against doing that harm, regulations to prevent that harm, and inspectors to makes sure those safety specs are followed there is no reason for those who would harm others for monetary pr power gain to restrain themselves except moral integrity. When's the last time you saw a corporation demonstrate moral integrity? They have the power, they have the money, and now (thanks to SCOTUS's horrible decision in Citizens United) they have Civil Rights as if they were people and an even power to corrupt government functionality.
Your arguments are flawed and your cause-and-effect conclusion are logically invalid and statistically unsupportable.

Not this shit again. It's

Not this shit again.

It's been reversed, debunked, etc for years.

But ultimately everything we get from government is because it first broke our legs and then eventually, begrudgingly handed us a crutch or it's just a scam.

For instance, FDIC insurance is not for us, it's for the banks. It allows the banks to do business without the people examining them in detail. Each one of those so-called points can be addressed that way, but those heavily conditioned in the government schools only see the government solving problems, never having created them in the first place or serving cronies because well, they don't tell us that part in school.

Cyril's picture

Their "reasoning"

I'm usually unnecessarily verbose, but on this one, just thought I could share my synthetic view on today's "liberals" (aka socialists)'s "reasoning" :

1) society owes me and should listen to me

2) government is society

3) therefore, more power to government

4) so that, I will get more free stuff and force my views on others more easily (because I know I'm right not just for me, but for everybody)


What they fail to ever comprehend, of course, being :

a) the exact nature of government

b) the exact value of individual freedoms

c) the exact limits of their intellect

d) the overall arrogance (and selfishness) of that sort of very short-sighted reasoning - especially considering the tremendous amount of "data" that we have already, as the exact contrary evidences for their "plan" (1) to (4) to work without ending in a total disaster for humanity.

I think it's normal for everybody to have been seduced once in a lifetime, maybe, by the socialist lie - usually in our late teens or earliest twenties.

Even I, once, found myself thinking that was maybe a good idea.

(That was long, long, long ago - and I was totally, grossly ignorant of important, past data points. It didn't take me long to change my opinion radically about that sort of system. Then of course, up until today, I just kept suffering its plunder.)

But past 30 or so of age, in 2014, to continue to praise socialism?... Well, sorry if I'll hurt feelings, but WTF? ... instead, it's more likely all about being an idiot, or an ignorant (and late), or a loser, or some evil, or any combination thereof.

Just IMO.

(Darn. And I couldn't make it terse, again.)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Progressive's Angst

Progressive assertions:
1) Scarcity is NOT natural. Scarcity ONLY happens because of greed. Production isn't necessary; only sharing.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism , as advocated by folks such as Noam Chomsky, is the way to go. No one needs prices to know what is worthwhile to do. Reason, and good will, are adequate to plan production. Labor is not a commodity.
3) Sovereignty should be based upon Good Intentions and not free moral agency. Corollary: Rule by Philosopher Kings!!
4) No one should ever have to suffer through no fault of their own.
5) From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,... is still the best way to organize society,... but people are too greedy and selfish to make it work. It would be better for society to live as social insects, than as human beings.
6) Why be satisfied with trade-offs when solutions suggest themselves so obviously!
7) Wealth is consumption, not production. We have our cake, not because we bake it, but because we eat it.

All these suppositions follow very naturally from the FACT that people today are essentially the same as we were a hundred thousand years ago when EVERYONE lived in nomadic, and essentially egalitarian, tribes. Most people's ethical, moral, and economic intuitions are still the same as our ancient ancestors, so is it any real surprise that so many people feel alienated in today's world where, under modern markets, the relationship between cause and effect is so abstract. For many caring, empathetic, people, trusting in Capitalism and self interest and the invisible hand of the market place makes just as much sense as walking off a ten story building,... and expecting the outcome to be okay. For more on this, see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom). Just like a computer, the market can not be argued with, or pleaded with, or persuaded to be different. To people who rely on their ability and skill to influence people, the cold logic of computers/markets is, of course, experienced as profoundly alienating. If reality offers little to them, then so much the worse for reality then!

Perhaps the most important insight of Austrian Economics, besides such curious assertions as 'a dollar arising from debt and inflation is far more likely to be misspent than a dollar arising from savings and productive effort'; 'that free markets, like free will, can not be reduced to equations,... no matter how prevalent "physics envy" may be', is the assertion that most of the information free markets rely upon is tacit and inarticulable,... and therefore, unavailable for academics and philosopher kings to use to better plan everyone's lives.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
― Friedrich von Hayek

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Would be nice if instead of

Would be nice if instead of the punch line at the end, the other side of the story was played.
Such as due to backlash against certain energy sources, coal production and use is much higher than it would other wise be meaning alot more pollutants go into the air.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Real Liberals don't listen to Rush Limbaugh....

While Liberals have fought for standards and protections that would allow for safe drinking water, good pay and benefits, retirement, etc., the reality is that those efforts have all been decimated and rolled back by the right-wing crowd, the Corporations, and the "centrists".

For example, Unions are a relic of the past and do not even exist today, or have become so weak that they have no power anymore. Instead we live in the age of Slave labor: Walmart, Home Depot, McDonalds, etc., where employees get doodley-squat for benefits and pay, and layoffs are always just around the corner.

And today we have Private (for-profit) Insurance Companies that control and run Health Care, and so we no longer have a situation where you only owe just a mere $10 co-pay anymore. Today, Americans go bankrupt because the bills are so high.

Student loans are also no longer cheap, and constantly one of the things that the GOP wants to have cut. College has become totally unaffordable.

The fallacy of this post is...that if Joe were actually a Liberal, then he would not be listening to a right-wing talk-radio host spouting off the viewpoint that the protections were of no benefit. Real Liberals don't agree with Rush Limbaugh, or the Hannitys/O'Reilley's of the world (who all benefited themselves from services).

The "Joe" described in this diary, is just the classic "right-middle-undecided", uninformed American who benefited from these once-upon-a-time offered services, but believes the right-wing propaganda spoonfed to him that people would be better off if they were abolished.

It's sad that the secure and happy 'American Dream' life described in this diary, no longer exists anymore in the American experience of today.

The Corporate-run politicians hollowed all that out, and took it away... And listening to the right-winger Talk-Radio hosts .. is half of the problem here (which a real liberal isn't going to do)!!

Sounds like you greatly sympathize with "liberal" ideals...

And "Joe" was NOT supposed to be a liberal, he was supposed to be a "TEA PARTY REPUBLICAN", and was being made fun of for listening to Limbaugh.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


I am a Libertarian-Liberal hybrid. An example of the kind of demographic that Ron Paul was happy to see attend his speeches, and make common cause with.

Like Ron Paul, I am anti-War, anti-Empire, anti-Secrecy, anti-Foreign-Aide, anti-Rothschilds-Bank ("federal reserve"), etc., and I support "free markets" -- and not Monopolies, Trusts, or Cartels.

But I also support the benefits of a "safety-net floor" that keeps people away from falling down into total abject poverty, with no hope, and no access ($$), and total despair.......because a rising tide lifts up all the boats, and it also keeps crime off the streets. Nobody can just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", if they have no straps, and straps cost a fortune.

So yes, I support the things listed here that were available to "Joe" in this Diary, because clearly he (and others) could live the 'American Dream' scenario by having them.


But people do not have that economic security anymore today, because these things have been weakened or gutted, and instead the priorities of this Country (since the 1980s) were shifted over to pouring Trillions of dollars into endless Global Wars, Empire, Mass-Murder, financing Monopolies, Bank & Insurance Profiteering, Corporate consolidation and control, and the rise of right-wing Talk-Radio.

Ok, but...

You can't be for the free-market and re-distribution at the same time. They are incompatible.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


"Free markets" are not impaired by helping people out of poverty, or helping people acquire valuable market-skills.

A healthy, robust, skilled population is good for "free markets".

A stratified society (Banana Republic), that is divided into the elites and the poor masses -- always produce the death of small businesses, and the ascension of just Cartels and Oligarchy.

Uh... It's called stealing...

Re-distribution is absolutely a violation of the free-market. It is stealing.

Simply "helping people out of poverty, or helping people acquire valuable market-skills" as you put it, is called "CHARITY".

CHARITY doesn't require taxation/re-distribution/stealing from one to give to another.

Please don't confuse Charity with Taxation/redistribution!!!!

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?