I'm trying to figure out where all of the talk about Clinton is coming from. The only thing I can see is this statement of mine:
There has been a great deal of effort put into showing that the debt didn't go down in '99. OK, point taken, that possible exception didn't occur. The debt has increased every year for decades, no exceptions.
I think we're basically in agreement that the budget has been out of balance for a long time, and is getting worse. I don't think the problem there is so much the tax and spenders as it is the borrow and spenders, but the fact remains that the feds spend way too much money and don't live within their means.
And the debt as a percentage of GDP is not irrelevant. The amount of debt is best measured that way. You can argue, of course, that there should be no debt at all, but the fact remains that there is, and a relative measure is more telling than an absolute one.
Finally, if the "Repugs" really wanted a balanced budget, they could have passed one during the six years in which they were in control of the Congress and White House. The fact is that the Republican party is no more fiscally responsible than the Democrats are, and that the talk about a balanced budget amendment was just that: talk.
