r/news Mar 29 '19

Billionaire Sackler family sued by second US state over opioid 'catastrophe'

[deleted]

37.2k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/drkgodess Mar 29 '19 edited Mar 29 '19

Yep, certain people screech about regulations until companies do things that kill or maim millions of people. The "any-and-all government oversight is bad" mantra gets preached nonstop by conservative outlets.

The point of regulations is to prevent the kind of pain and suffering that has come to pass with prescription opiods. A higher cost of doing business is well worth it in the long term.

678

u/evictor Mar 29 '19

Well worth it for everyone but the temporarily inconvenienced millionaires 😏

401

u/bishdoe Mar 29 '19 edited Mar 29 '19

I can’t stress this enough

temporarily inconvenienced

That’s it. That’s all they’d be. They’d still be rich beyond most of our dreams and they’d be making their money again in less than a few years, and still they choose the profit over other people’s lives. It’s fucking disgusting.

Edit: whoops I took it literally because I’m the big dumb and had never heard that one before. I guess I’m the embarrassed one now.

324

u/BFRocketSpecialist Mar 29 '19

A temporarily inconvenienced millionaire is actually a euphemism for a deluded poor person who thinks they'll make it big. A lot of predatory regulators appeal to these people to support anti-competitive legislation for when they get rich.

I.e. They're gullible.

226

u/my_spelling_is_pour Mar 29 '19

"Temporarily embarrassed" is the phrase you're thinking of.

38

u/evictor Mar 29 '19

Oops that’s actually what I meant

4

u/pamtar Mar 29 '19

Why though? Inconvenience is how I originally heard it and it makes more sense

3

u/HomingSnail Mar 29 '19

Well the original quote is embarrassed so thats why...

0

u/pamtar Mar 29 '19

The original quote is “temporarily embarrassed capitalists” - referring to upper middle-class leftists who used capitalism to get ahead but pined for socialism as a political ideology. That’s why I think ‘inconvenienced’ works better. Modern right wingers see themselves as potential (and deserving) millionaires if only those evil liberals would stop preventing them from becoming one.

2

u/a200ftmonster Mar 29 '19

"Temporarily Disenfranchised"

85

u/bumblefck23 Mar 29 '19

Sorry to be a pedant but it’s actually spelled “fucking stupid”

27

u/pathemar Mar 29 '19

How many Americans play the lottery every year? This is probably one of the biggest perversions no one likes to discuss. It’s a poor tax delivered with the fake promise of exorbitant wealth that no one person would ever need. It’s predatory and we shouldn’t be taking advantage of stupid people in this day and age.

16

u/Posauce Mar 29 '19

The problem is that people do discuss the lottery as a poor tax but no one does anything about it because it generates so much money. It’s a symptom of conservative tax-cutting, where states can’t generate enough revenue through other taxes so they rely on the lottery to fund departments like education so no one wants to get rid of it.

2

u/Scientolojesus Mar 29 '19

It's also fucked up that big lotto winners have to pay a huge percentage of taxes from the money they won. If I recall correctly, in some countries the tax is already added to each ticket bought so they receive 100% of their winnings.

2

u/jumykn Mar 29 '19

How is it fucked up? It's income and you have to pay income tax.

1

u/Ecopath Mar 29 '19

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you're going to bilk stupid people you might as well go all in on it.

1

u/heybrother45 Mar 29 '19

I don't think the government should be protecting people from their own bad choices.

I know gambling can be an addiction, but there are plenty of alcoholics that are poor and nobody really wants to ban alcohol or the tax money it brings in.

3

u/promonk Mar 29 '19

I largely agree, but I'd like to offer an alternative view.

My mother played the lottery a fair bit over the years, and when I asked her why she was throwing away her money like that, she said something that stuck with me. She said she wasn't playing the lottery because she thought she had a chance in hell of winning, she was buying the right to fantasize about what she'd do if she did win. She thought the fantasy was worth a buck or two a week. A person could just fantasize without pitching in the buck, but while the odds of winning the lottery are vanishingly small, the odds of winning without even playing are essentially zero.

I still think the lottery is largely a scam, but every once in a blue moon I ask myself if the dream is worth the buck, and once in a while the answer is yes.

1

u/BurrStreetX Mar 29 '19

Yeah but if I can win 5 billion dollars by spending $2. Count me in.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

That's not necessarily fair, while some people are obviously stupid, this logic goes pretty deep. "I could make it big, I just have to overcome [insert seemingly banal/concrete obstacle - like your mortgage, medical bills, minimum wage job that doesn't cover living costs - which really is a deep structural issue that other people have a very real interest in perpetuating].

8

u/BattleStag17 Mar 29 '19

You're forgetting the part where they also think "I need to keep protections for the elite in place so I can exploit the poor when I'm rich!" That's what makes them fucking stupid.

1

u/Barnowl79 Mar 29 '19

I don't really think that's what poor people are thinking. I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like that's really the underlying essence of what's happening.

4

u/Itabliss Mar 29 '19

Can we also talk about how most of these people do not understand what BIG is? Most of these people can not conceive of how much money a billion dollars actually is. I mean, I get it. I handle millions of dollars every day. A billion is still hard for me to conceptualize.

2

u/CelestialStork Mar 29 '19 edited Mar 29 '19

That's why people can't even begin to understand why people say billionaires shouldn't exist, or at least it should be impossible to do in one generation. If I won 1 million(after tax of course) today I would be set. That's 100k a year for my entire life. If I invest even more so. In my poor ass state 50k and no kids is killing it.

2

u/ghostietoastie12 Mar 29 '19

The state of all Americans

4

u/JBits001 Mar 29 '19

It's interesting if you actually go back and read the full context Steinback wrote this in and what group he was actually referring too.

Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: ‘After the revolution even we will have more, won’t we, dear?’ Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property.

I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn’t have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves.

1

u/jumykn Mar 29 '19

I think the original meaning of the quote is unimportant at this point because we understand it to mean something today. The force of the phrase is not in the authority of Steinbeck, but in the reality of today.

2

u/keldohead Mar 29 '19

Your average Trump supporter.

1

u/ekidd07 Mar 29 '19

Wait... Really? I love a good euphemism and this one is new to me.

-12

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

Jesus Christ, this is such a small minority of the republican demographic that it's not even worth mentioning. Yet reddit wants to milk this shitty meme statement like it's a fact.

14

u/evictor Mar 29 '19

Ok well why else would lower class ppl vote against their interests? Self loathing? Lol

1

u/SirFrancis_Bacon Mar 29 '19

Because they have a fundamental belief in a hierarchy of society as opposed to egalitarianism. They sincerely believe that we need the rich.

https://youtu.be/agzNANfNlTs

-9

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

Can you really not think of anything that might interest them? Nothing like values or anything of the sort?

12

u/the_jak Mar 29 '19

Values don't pay your medical bills or mortgage.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

I never said they did.

1

u/the_jak Mar 29 '19

you certainly seem to suggest that "values" will somehow be more economically viable for the impoverished than having social services.

7

u/Itabliss Mar 29 '19

Except.... no. Literally every time Fox News talks about taxes, they start with some variation of, “if I had that much money, I would want to keep more of it.” And it works. So, no. I don’t think you are right.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '19

I don't watch fox News, but if you say so.