Judging by the image I linked above in the rescessions/crashes there were only the ones directly after WW2 (5 I believe) in which debt went up during the recession and then immediately down afterwards unless you count the Clinton "bump" which would seem questionable.
Considering the Depression and great Recession are the only times we were over 100% GDP to Debt ratio it seems reasonable, if anything it shows how the Reagan and Bush Sr Presidencies were a mindboggingly "Conservative" failure.
The problem I see is that for the past 3 decades or so we have not cared about the proper way of doing things. We surely cannot stay above a 100% GDP to Debt ratio forever.
But that is as a % of GDP, not in real dollars, right? The problem with the 'spend more now but we'll pay back more later' seems to me that the people saying it in Mantratone either don't understand - or refuse to admit - that the payback
never happens. It's akin to this:
Hey kid, lend me $1 today, and tomorrow I'll give you it back. Tomorrow comes around, and I then say to the kid, hey kid, lend me $1.10 today, and tomorrow I'll pay you back $2.10. Then the third day, I say to the kid, hey kid, lend me $1.20 today and tomorrow I'll give you back $3.30. Infinitum.
At what point is it a lie when the kid realizes, Hey, what a sec, you're
never going to pay me back! (it doesn't matter that the kid will get better jobs that pay more, be fired, be layed off, get another job, etc. Just as the economy will do. The point is,
never is the balance brought to even)
That's my problem. I obviously prefer to just spend within our means, but, I can be convinced to do QE if it is shown that after QE in the past, balanced budgets have been enforced somewhere and the debt was paid off to at least the pre-crash amount.
All I'm simply asking for is examples of that.
Surely these exist, right???