> These people have zero credibility on anything debt-related until they repudiate their party's economic policies under Reagan and Bush II, both periods when it should not have been necessary for the US to radically increase its debt burden.
Reagan's spending was during a recession, which is when the standard theory says that govts should go into debt. I note that the folks on the left didn't want less spending at that time - they wanted far more. And, they were in a position to cut a lot of spending and refused.
As to Bush II, the only opposition from the left to any of his spending increases (other than Iraq) was that it wasn't enough. Since debt is the difference between revenue and spending, anyone who advocates increased spending when revenues are not increasing even more is advocating increased debt.
> Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees).
Because Ghod knows that a govt worker will always do the right thing and for less.
Reagan's spending was during a recession, which is when the standard theory says that govts should go into debt. I note that the folks on the left didn't want less spending at that time - they wanted far more. And, they were in a position to cut a lot of spending and refused.
As to Bush II, the only opposition from the left to any of his spending increases (other than Iraq) was that it wasn't enough. Since debt is the difference between revenue and spending, anyone who advocates increased spending when revenues are not increasing even more is advocating increased debt.
> Lest we forget they were also a major proponent of social security reform (translation: Republican-championed efforts to invest Social Security funds directly in the stock market in ways that would generate private management fees).
Because Ghod knows that a govt worker will always do the right thing and for less.