Brian Schweitzer

[RJ]

Hope I spelled his name right.

Saw a piece on 60 minutes about him tonight. More reasonable and well rounded as a potential candidate than I gave him credit for. If he campaigns as passionate for his potential candidacy and presidential campaign as he does for his coal-into-diesel fuel program(which has been around for decades), I think he could win. Not saying it will happen in 2008, but a Democratic loss then will open the door in 2012.

I realize he's a longshot to even compete in the nomination process, but what are his chances? If he were nominated, how well could he do in a presidential race?

[RJ]

He's your typical liberal and that will become apparent if he runs for President.

He's anti gun control and has established a rapport with rural Montana.

[RJ]

Liberal or not, he's one of the few politicians I've ever heard of who has a clue on how to at least stop the bleeding on one of our country's most serious issues: Energy sources.

His economic policies are exactly what liberals are proposing, more benefits, more money, less reform to go along with it.

What makes you think "liberals" are proposing these economic policies?

We have a true red conservative in the White House today and the budget is a horrible mess with no reform in sight.  When we had a "liberal" in the White House, the budget was managed effectively and there was some sense of fiscal responsibility. I think I'd take "liberal" economic policies any day if it means a little fiscal restraint and debt management.

[RJ]

Clinton had the nice benefit of a roaring economy, something Bush clearly hasn't had at all.

Why do you suppose that was? Perhaps because the budget was balanced?

I was only comparing one aspect of "liberal" and god-only-knows-what economic policies.

[RJ]

I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

[/quote]

This sounds like a proposal to me. The economy balances the budget, but the budget itself has no bearing on the economy. Not so sure I buy that. What caused the economy to thrive under Clinton? Why is it sagging under Bush? If the economy is not bringing in more revenue now, why did Bush cut taxes and increase the Pentagon's budget, contributing mightily to the budget deficits we see now? If balancing the budget had no bearing on the economy, what did?

His economic policies are exactly what liberals are proposing, more benefits, more money, less reform to go along with it.

This sounds like another proposal: taking bad elements of budget management and associating it with one group of people. "Liberals." What do you mean by more money and less reform? What do "Liberals" have to do with it?

[RJ]

Jake is correct however, that the economy affects the budget a lot, lot more than the other way around. 

We've seen record deficits in the last few years. Does that mean our economy today is the worst its ever been? Under Jimmy Carter, we didn't see soaring deficits. Was the economy in good shape when he was president?

I'll admit I took something Jake said out of context:

I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

It sounded like he said the opposite of a balanced budget means economic growth, refering to an unbalanced budget. I went to edit my earlier post and deleted it on accident.