[MD] Dynamic Development at all costs?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Because Bush et al are not responsible for it. It's now built into 
the system as are so many other welfare aspects of the debt.

[Arlo]
Wait, so the debt isn't as bad as people say it is, despite the huge 
increases in debt-GDP ratio under all republican presidents beginning 
with Raygun, and even though the ratio only increases under Raygun 
and the House of Bush, they aren't responsible for it because 
"republicans" are not responsible for Social Security?

So again I ask, if the debt, which will hit $10 trillion dollars, and 
the debt-GDP ratio which will hit nearly 70%, is just 
"fear-mongering", then why do we worry about spending at all? Hell, 
why not $12 trillion! Or 80%! When should we start to be worried?

[Platt]
I pasted the above into Google and got this result from the wiki page:

[Arlo]
That's funny, this link works from all the machines I tested here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

It also shows that under Roosevelt and Truman the debt-GDP ratio was 
reduced (-24.3%) and then under Truman it was reduced again (-21.9%). 
Seems if this ratio proves anything, it proved that under these 
administrations things were the best, while under Raygun the worst (a 
+20.5% increase over 2 terms).

[Platt]
The ratio of debt to GDP went up to over 100 percent under Roosevelt...

[Arlo]
The spike you refer to occured between 1942 and 1945. Hmm.. wonder 
what could've caused that? What was going on then?

And Roosevelt took office in 1933. From 1933 to 1942, the ratio was 
more-or-less unchanged at around 41%. From '42-'45 there was the 
spike you mention (gotta find out what was going on then...), but 
then from '45 onward under both Roosevelt and Truman (and actually 
ALL presidents until Raygun took office) the ration decreased.

'42-'45... Social Security was signed into law in 1935. For the first 
7 years of SS, there was NO increase to the debt-GDP ratio. And after 
45, I assume that SS existed, and yet the ratio decreases continually 
until Raygun takes office in 1980.

Hmm. Doesn't look like SS is the cause of that spike, nor really 
matters much since from 1945-1980, the ratio drops steadily under all 
presidents.

Hey! Ya think that spike could have anything to do with that war 
thingy that was going on from 42-45? Since that correlates exactly 
with the spike, and oddly when that war thing ends, the ratio begins 
a continued decrease back to pre-war thingy levels.

[Platt]
Just trying to put succinctly some of the justification for the debt increases.

[Arlo]
Wow! Since the afforementioned spike was a war against the forces of 
evil, guess that justifies it.

[Platt]
But, I'm surprised you are pushing the bogeman of the debt. I thought 
you were the leader in criticizing fear-mongering. I hope you will 
continue to do so. It's certainly needed in today's political climate.

[Arlo]
I'm not advocating a "sky is falling" cry here, but like with 
pollution I do think we have other options between "the world is 
ending tomorrow" and "there's nothing to see here, move along". 
Obviously, we do have some cause for concern. And obviously, we 
should not wait until the sky IS falling before we start thinking 
about making things better.

But if this ratio, that you brought up I remind, means anything, its 
shows that under "trickle down" policies the ratio worsens. Under the 
sensible policies of ALL presidents, republican and democratic, the 
ratio had been managed well. And if the ratio does not mean anything, 
if a 70% ratio is not any cause for concern, then seems to me we 
should not worry about government spending at all! Rack up the debt! 
If $10 trillion/70% GDP is "business as usual", then why worry if the 
government spends another few trillion on racks up a few more 
percentage points feeding the hungry?