We worry far to much about public debt when we should be far more concerned about setting the proper national priorities and how we spend our public money. We should also be as much concerned about private household debt as public debt. Most debt in the U.S. is of course private debt which dwarfs public debt. While I was looking up U.S. public debt ratio to GDP I came across this which I thought was interesting. (The Democrats here, if there are any, will like it.) Source: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
You are absolutely right, you clever devil! zfacts did not take into account WWII. But unfortunately for the unlucky Republicans, the drop in WWII debt was so precipitous in the 8 eight years after the war that much of it was already gone by the time Eisenhower was inaugurated in 1953. Those Republicans! They just can't get a break!!! I don't think we should give the Democrats too much credit here, do you? It wasn't the Democrats' donkey that made that precipitous drop in U.S. debt per GDP possible; it was the economic hegemony that fell into the U.S. lap after WWII. It is not the same same today, of course. We no longer have an economic hegemony. But at least we do have more nukes and the best drones.:eek: Well ok, I admit it. I am not a drone expert !!! (And too, let's not forget Janet Jackson and timely wardrobe malfunction. We still have that to be proud of.)
bush inherited a great fiscal situation from clinton, a balanced budget. by his actions it made it acceptable to elect an obama who shows no fiscal restraint.
I agree that the Horrible errors of the G.W. Bush period more or less guaranteed that any half way competent Democrat would be swept into the White House. What we emphatically don't agree on is fiscal policy during a recession. And since Obama inherited what would become recognized as the Great Recession, it makes our disagreement all the greater. The heavy deficits of the first Obama Term are much the result of previous errors in Financial regulation and Fed policy piled on top of the GW Bush administration's foreign policy errors. These errors go back to Clinton's final year in the White House. The blame for the financial crisis can not be laid at either Bush's or Obama's feet. I'm sure everyone can agree on that. The Great failure of the Bush administration, and one entirely of their own making, was the invasion of Iraq. The human costs are uncountably high. By the time interest , veteran's benefits, and the cost of follow-on wars created by the Bush-Cheney invasion are taken into account, the dollar cost will be well over four Trillion dollars. (100% of the money has been and is being borrowed). The interest on war debt was of course carried forward and piled on top of the deficits occasioned by recovery from the Great recession. These war debts are not going away. By contrast the costs of the Great Recession have almost all been in stimulus (not enough in my opinion.) What we have termed bailout expense, TARP, etc., has largely been repaid and it now appears that the profits and losses will largely cancel and the whole business will have been accomplished at virtually no direct cost to the tax payer. That does not mean, however that the Great Recession has been without cost, as many individuals have suffered mightily, but government costs, i.e. taxpayer cost, of the bailouts will largely be a wash. The costs of stimulus should eventually come back in increased revenue --assuming the Stimulus was effective, and on that point there can be disagreement. As I see it, there are five primary culprits here, and Obama is not one of them. In no particular order, they are Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Chances are, if these five had never been born, our country would be substantially better off today. Although I have many criticisms of Obama, against the backdrop of the 1999-2008 period his administration does not fare too badly.