I think you are missing the obvious, LJ. If the line was "flat" -- say, stayed at 100% of GDP -- then that would mean that each administration ADDED to the national debt IN PROPORTION to the rate of inflation. Or more accurately, at the rate of GDP growth.
This would mean that the BURDEN of paying off the debt remains the same, relatively speaking. Yes, the debt went up; but so did the output of the nation.
IF the line goes UP, the burden as been INCREASED.
If the line goes DOWN, the burden has been LESSENED.
If the line goes up RAPIDLY, then the burden has been increased dramatically. That's bad. Sometimes, it's fatal.
I think you have a blind spot because this occurred primarily under Reagon, G Bush, and GW Bush.
I remember the Carter years quite well, even though I was a late teen. There was much bellyaching about the big deficits, records at the time (in nominal terms). But that was but a shadow of what was to come in terms of escalating burdens foisted upon future generations.
I thought that by illustrating those points with a hypothetical household, it would be obvious. The GOP has massaged a myth that they are the fiscally responsible party. But, history (the last 28 years anyway) shows otherwise.
I personally don't give a hoot about the rhetoric: actions are what counts. That myth is just one of many by the two dominant parties. As The Who said so simply, "We won't be fooled again!"
mises.org
edit: one last thought -- those graphs understate how badly thngs have progressed. The debt of 360% of GDP (maybe 400% now?) would be staggering if it was portrayed in terms of the gov't revenue. I'm guessing that in today's dollars, it's on the order of 3000% to 4000% of a single year's Federal tax receipts. That is simply drug crazed. |
