Friday, April 24, 2009

McIlheran Gets It

P-Mac, who actually read the signs and talked with TEA Party folks, gets it.

The critics miss a key distinction, one central to roughly 220 years of American liberty. It is this: One can favor government without favoring ever-growing, unlimited government.

The rallies made this point, that it's not taxes so much as their increase. "Tea," aside from the allusion to history, stood for "taxed enough already." This is what people wrote on signs. "Instead of raising taxes, maybe we should be tightening our belts," one gent in Milwaukee said. I can see where critics missed this, though, since you'd have to actually bother listening to ralliers to pick it up.

Yup.

Next TEA party/protest day: July 4th, 2009.

Bring something that goes "BOOM!!"

7 comments:

John Foust said...

Where were the teabaggers eight-and-a-half-years ago when we really needed them? Ah, most of them were cheering the growth of a certain type of government.

TerryN said...

Bullshirt John. They just hadn't had enough yet.

John Foust said...

OK, four-and-a-half years ago, then. Where were they? Cheering "Four more years"? The writing wasn't on the wall regarding Bush's spending and expansion of anti-liberty intrusions?

Anonymous said...

I LOVE the new direction the party is headed. Tea parties? British feminism at its finest!

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhhh...John....

You won't find unalloyed love of GWB on THIS blogsite. I'll grant you that the unrest was triggered by some with political connections.

But those were not exactly (R) love-ins, either, John.

Oh--I forgot. You weren't there, but you know EVERYTHING that was said.

J. Strupp said...

I do wonder if most Americans understand the concept of deficit spending during times of severe recession though.

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhhh, yes. They do. And it has VERY mixed results.

FDR's fiscal program was not terribly effective, as you know.

I'm a "limited Keynesian;" I think that the Fed can crank spending on such things as new Fed cars, new Fed military toys, etc.--which relies on private industry's production resources and labor.

However, I don't believe in pissing it down the drain on NON-productive spending, such as more Fed/State employees.

All that does is set up a trap.