A guy whom I have always liked, and, whom I considered to be a "class act", TONY SNOW, has died.


Chess Fan

spock, I think you haven't noticed that the Republicans, who used to be the fiscally conservative party, gave up that part of their platform during the Regan years. Now the only thing they know how to do is spend more money and give tax breaks only to the rich.

This has bothered me since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Anyone who believes that was a tax cut, send me your phone number and I'll call to tell you all the ways it has raised our taxes and cost the government money.

I too am a fiscal conservative. Looking at the economic mess this country is experiencing now makes me sick. That's why I'm up in the middle of the night writing one the ninja board.

"Tax and spend liberals" have been replaced by "borrow and spend" Republicans. And Reagan was a piker compared to George W. Reagan at least built up the military, while George W. has only two half-finished wars to show for his expenses. Reagan built up the military and didn't fight any wars; GWB did not build up the military and plunged into two wars.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that summed it up: "I never thought I'd be nostaligic for Nixon."

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Plus, I have heard that the Republicans have put away a little bit of money for a possible future Ed Yetman, III wedding!!


Chess Fan

I expect that it is very little money. I hope they got a good interest rate.

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

My experience over the past couple of decades has been that the liberals have tended to be more fiscally conservative. I see the Republicans these days as being merely socially conservative.

Personally, I am very liberal, yet I maintain no debt and have loads of savings. My relatives who are almost all Republicans are the opposite, mired in debt.

Are you talking about their private lives, or the public positions they advocate?

In my experience it has been both. And, looking at the presidents we have had since Reagan, it looks the same - the government gets larger under the Republicans and spending is out of control.

I think it is true that many liberals are actually trying to balance a budget. But I think its somewhat inequitable to compare wartime spending to peace time spending.

If you want to say well he got us in the war so its his fault and I therefore blame him for our economic woes, you should consider how much you your economic policy is driving your military. For example lets say attacking a certain country would help our economy. How much should economics play a role in our decision to go to war? I'm not necessarily saying no role but a very limitted one.

If we must go to war then we need to go to war. If that is a bad decision then the president should be criticized for it but I don't think much of the criticism should be economic in nature.

I understood when W Bush got into office that he would most likely push us into a war (preferably with Iraq), so I can and do blame him for what has followed. Also, even without the war his policies still would have been bigger government and more spending. You could see that coming even before 9/11.