Well, I think the events of September 11th and the ensuing war on terrorism
have definitely caused some approaches in financial terms to change
dramatically, but in general I feel that President Bush's fiscal approach
has been economically sound and I agree with it. In point of fact, the
Presidential office has very little to do with actual economic trends and
when people try to make that kind of argument it only shows how little they
understand about economics.

I'm not real thrilled about the high billions of dollars being spent on
Iraq, but that's the situation at this point. I'm not going to pretend to
know what the best way to approach that is.

In general, I agree with most of the Republican platform - smaller
government, stronger military, lower taxes. I felt like puking my guts up
when Clinton downsized military bases and ballooned social programs. But,
thankfully, we live in a free country where differing opinions are welcome.
My Dad and I are the only Republicans in my family (that makes us 2 vs.
about 40, counting aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.), so I learned
long ago that trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of being a
Democrat and vice versa is an exercise in futility.

Mike

--

There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.


"Kim Whitmyre" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
says...
You're a Democrat, aren't you, Charlie?

I, for one, think we are already over-regulated. Sure, there are cases
where some controls might be appropriate, but in general I feel that in
terms of government "Less is More".

This is not directed at you, Mike, but the actual "less is more" crowd
is currently in power and what they mean by "less is more" is more for
them and less for you! ;~)

Kim