[MD] Dynamic Development at all costs?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Please see the debt-GDP chart at wiki that tells a somewhat different 
story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

[Arlo]
Charts are identical. Where do you see any difference to what I said.

[Arlo had said]
When Carter left office, this ratio was at about 38%. By the end 
of  the Raygun years, it was about 58%, and by the end of Pappy Bush 
it was pushing 70%. Although it continued to rise in the early 
Clinton years, when Clinton left office it had been reduced to around 
58%. Under Bush Jr. it is back up to 63%.

[Platt]
What is shows is the hysteria about the national debt is phony-baloney.

[Arlo]
Why is it phony-baloney to point out that under Raygun and Pappy 
Bush, the debt-GDP ratio soared from 38% (left by Carter) to almost 
70%? That it reduced under Clinton, but then went back up to 63% 
under Bush Jr.? Does that not mean anything? I though the whole point 
of you giving this ratio was that they are a more accurate reflection 
of concern than raw debt?

Do you not think the debt is a problem? If not, why worry about 
government spending at all? I mean, according to the page you 
offered, "in 2007 Congress raised the debt limit to $9.815 
trillion..." $10 trillion dollars? That's an almost meaningless 
amount, like saying 10 bajillion dollars. At what point do you ever 
see it becoming a problem? 100 gajillion bobillion banafana fofana 
dollars? Or is a ratio thing? Is it 70% debt-GDP? 90%? When?

Nonetheless, this very page you point to gives enough reason why we 
should be concerned. Thanks.