Its a long standing argument whether the size of the debt matters. The simple answer is yes and no. It does matter if our revenue stream cannot keep up with the debt (which is happening now). It did not matter much under Reagan because GDP (and corresponding tax revenues) were growing at roughly the same pace as expenditures. The means tested entitlements (not SS and Medicare) is the one area that has grown faster and larger than any other since Reagan was elected.
A simple way to look at the debt is like a mortgage. Someone making $100K per year and having a $400K mortgage is probably a little distressed. His/her mortgage debt will be taking too much of a chunk of his income for him to cover all other expenses.
But suppose he/she makes $500K per year and has an $800K house. In this case, the debt is easily manageable with the income. So, the absolute size matters somewhat because if the $500K person loses their job, they have a bigger debt burden. But as long as revenues stay up, the debt is not a problem.
The democrats in 1980 were in no political position to argue with Reagan/Stockman. They had just presided over the worst fiscal policies since FDR extended the depression.
Then there is always the argument about what president benefits from the previous policies. Given that defense spending increase by 50% under Reagan/Bush1, (actually only until 1990) the corresponding decline in defense spending allowed bubba to claim economic surpluses without really doing much to create those surpluses.
After Bush 2, I thought Obama would have 8 free years because all he had to do was ......NOTHING. The economy was in the middle of a depression and would have rebounded had obama/geithner done nothing. We should be on our third quarter of recovery by now. But spending/printing money/taxing is FDR all over again.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx
The link is to UCLA. NOT a conservative group.
Who Increased The Debit
