Pericles -- I think we have more often suffered from too much government rather than too little. I agree that the Liberals wouldn't have done much better. I'm not a Liberal. I preferenced Rudd over Howard at the last election, but I'm a swing voter.

Fractelle & mikk -- This is semantics. If Bush/Cheney are "right-wing" then I'm the opposite. If I am "right-wing" then they are the opposite. Bush increased government spending, ran a big budget deficit, invaded two other countries, maintained troops around the world, restricted civil liberties, suspected haebus corpus, banned gay marriage, over-ruled medical marijuana, continued industry & farm subsidies, introduced a huge stimulus package and bailed-out the banks.

Whatever you want to call it, it is the direct opposite of me. I am a classical liberal, aka libertarian. I suspect that you (and most other people) actually agree with more of the Bush agenda than I do. Consequently, for mikk to accuse me of being a "neo-con" is absurd. I suspect he is thinking of "neo-liberal" and has got them confused because they both start with "neo-".

mikk -- you suggest most of the stimulus has already been spent. It hasn't. You suggest interest rates haven't risen. They have. You ask why they haven't risen more. The answer is that we will probably get most of our money from the international money markets, which drives up exchange rates (not interest rates). I explained all of these clearly in my original article. You then follow this anti-logic with a string of abuse. Either address the arguments, or admit that you can't.