There are some impressive experts, including Greenspan, who disagree with you. And they make sense.

Kinda "Carville"ing Clinton, aren't you?

I mean, the national debt tripled under "balance the budget" and "stay the course" Reagan, and Bush inherited a recession.

Clinton worked hard to reduce deficit spending, and the economy boomed.

May just have been the cycle, just like the climate varies. I call it "lung cancer" logic. The tobacco companies for years and years had people believing that since some people who got lung cancer didn't smoke that smoking didn't influence lung cancer.

Since not all good economies were influenced by more balanced budgets, none of them were, at least none under a Democrat. No effect. Clinton thought so, Greenspan thought so, a bunch of folks thought so, and the economy took off.

Now, it will do OK too if Bush can just borrow enough money to keep pumping it in. It gets to be a problem if anyone thinks about paying it back. Short-sighted, may help get him re-elected.

And, my Republican neo-Carville, there are some good Democratic ideas which are good.

Arf