Quote Of The Day

“But is it really so absurd for ordinary Americans to be furious that Uncle Sam now promises to run up $9.3 trillion in debt during the next decade – an unfathomable sum that will inevitably lead to much higher taxes or higher inflation or both?  Is it small-minded to oppose corporate welfare for automakers, banks, and insurance companies?  Is it lunatic to fear further socialization of medical-care provision?  Do these concerns really signal that those of us who hold them are, as Mr. Krugman alleges, “refusing to grow up”? One need not agree with the tea-partiers to concede that these worries are ones that reasonable people can, and do, have.” — Donald J. Boudreaux, economics professor, on the recent Tea Parties

6 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”

  • In 2003 I opposed the Iraq War. One day I drove to an anti-war rally, but I couldn’t bring myself to join the protesters- there were just too many loonies there, so I drove off.

    For me, these tea parties had the same problem – too many loonies. No way would I want to be photographed next to some “moran” with a “Maobama” t-shirt and holding some stupid sign referring to the most recent manufactured right-wing hysteria/paranoia (probably something about that DHS report).

    And, yes, I’m concerned about the national debt.

    I did participate in an Atlanta pro-immigration reform rally in 2006. (And it was a heart-warming, unexpectedly patriotic experience.) Police reported about 50,000 participants. Compare that to the self-estimated 15,000 or so at the Atlanta tea party (reportedly the largest in the nation with Hannity, etc.)

    My point: I suspect a lot of folks felt like I did about the tea parties.

  • I agree with you on the looney point. Some pictures were simply offensive.

  • I was going to go to the Boise, Idaho protest. I don’t think of myself as a looney. The folks that I knew that attended or wanted to attend but couldn’t (were working)are not loonies. In fact, I was surprised that they attended the protest.
    I looked at video and photos of various tea parties across the nation. I didn’t spot any loonies. I didn’t spot any offensive signs either. I did see spelling errors, incorrect word usage, incoherent messages, and just plain stupid signs. Since I disagree with the two of you on the question of “too many loonies”, I would conclude that it is in the “eye of the beholder.” Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes a looney and what is offensive.
    I can provide you only two examples of what I saw and heard (yesterday & today) that I would classify as “looney.”
    I didn’t attend the protest because I agreed to cover classes for a fellow teacher that afternoon. She is a high school science teacher. The first class was on magnetism and metal detectors. No actual science was discussed but the question of the invasion of privacy by detectors was covered extensively.
    The second class was a health class. The topic was tobacco. The students were to write a one page essay on whether the individual (from a case study) or the tobbacco companies should pay for medical care as a result of smoking. One of the students asked “What does this have to do with health science?”
    Mercifully, the last class was assigned a report on magnetism with no political overtones. This teacher also wrote “Happy Tax Day” on her board. It was not meant to be sarcastic. My conclusion is that she is a bonafide “looney” and an incompetent teacher to boot.
    The second example of what I consider looney was a caller to Dennis Miller today. This guy called in to express his happiness with making money and willingness to pay 50% in taxes to the government. I agree with Miller that happily giving 1 out of every 2 of my hard earned dollars to the government is lunacy. The guy is a looney.
    Last but not least, what does the characterization of protestors as loonies have anything to do with the actual posted quote?

  • gsarcs,

    The tea party protests were far better than most protests I have seen. But at some locations, there were a few people who went to far. You are right though, that should not be used to paint the full swath of protesters – many of which, were everyday good people with noble concerns.

  • The point about the defecit is 100% valid. My problem with the teabaggers is where was the outrage for the 8 years under Bush when he inherited a surplus and left with a $750 billion deficit 8 years later. Why wasn’t Fox rallying the troops for the past 8 years on deficits then.

  • It probably has to do with magnitude and duration.

    Obama’s deficits are so far off the charts larger than any other presidents that it makes even people remotely concerned about deficits stand up. See here for a comparison.

    Obama’s deficits finance government programs that have no end in sight. With Bush, a majority of his deficit financed the Iraq war and Afghanistan war, and as soon as those wars were over, we can expect the budget to start balancing. On the other hand, Obama is financing programs that can go on indefinitely – so the severity of the issue is very different.

    So the more pertinent question is: why did those that complain loudly about Bush’s deficits not do so with the overwhelming larger Obama deficits?

Leave a Reply