17 Feb 2014 5:53 am
I've already explain how debt to GDP was supposed to be used in a different post. The metric is not supposed outline how much the national debt is improving. You cannot 'pay down' your debt to GDP. The metric is used solely for investors to gauge the nations ability to pay off its debt. Obviously, the more debt the nation accumulates relative to what the nation actually produces is problematic, but that essentially was not a problem during the Reagan administration (or any other administration before it).Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 10:35 pm » wrote:
It's been a while, I will confess.
But nattering from the cheap seats isn't exactly an admirable skill, either, sweetness. Maybe if you could POSIT rather than whine, Peaches, you might just wow us all and rehabilitate your big spending, big borrowing, stagnant economy hero, hmmm?
The time to have been concerned about debt to GDP was during 2009, when debt to GDP breached 75% and was increased for an extended period of time.
Reagan is far from my hero, but it's really absurd to suggest the economy of the 1970's was better.