“But since you want to play the GDP ratio game, here’s your list of 11 nations “giving” to the Ukraine war... Only this time we’ll use GDP to debt, not GDP to Ukraine assistance. So....”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I appreciate your effort... but saying that America should not help its allies from Russian invasions because we have a high GDP to debt ratio of 123% doesn’t hold up.
Indeed, the “high GDP to dept ratio” is a political choice Republicans and Democrats have always pushed for. Why?
Because it gives:
Economic Strength and Diplomatic Leverage = Power!
Concerning the USA, a high GDP-to-debt ratio indicates that the country’s economy is generating significant output relative to its debt burden. This suggests economic strength and resilience, which enhances America’s influence on the international stage.
America CAN play this game because every region in the world relies on the US dollar for trade. It’s a formidable force!
So... as I explained above, America has a high 123% GDP-to-dept ratio based on a bipartisan CHOICE. America wants to influence the world because its tends to be profitable - especially in the long run.
Let’s not forget that America became an economic super-power based on WWII and based on that very policy of “influence”.
Reagan was a master at it, and that’s why I’m a profound supporter of Reaganism. Reganism crushed the communist Soviet mad-house. That made America even stronger.
When Russia will lose its nonsensical war against Ukraine, it will strengthen America, once again (!), just like America was strengthened when it won the cold war.
And now this:
Historically speaking, countries with low GDP to dept ratio are generally bad in influencing others on the international stage in a durable and stable way...
Your claim about things is simply incorrect, historically. I do not accept your assertion that you are knowledgeable about Ronald Reagan and his administration. Why? You didn't bother to do your due diligence to support "Indeed, the 'high GDP to dept ratio' is a political choice Republicans and Democrats have always pushed for." They simply haven't. The GDP to debt ration for the Reagan years is as follows:
1981 -- 32.41 percent--- So your assertion is incorrect, and not validated with actual facts. You say, "Historically speaking, countries with low GDP to dept ratio are generally bad in influencing others on the international stage in a durable and stable way..."
1982 -- 35.83 percent
1983 -- 37.45 percent
1984 -- 41.32 percent
1985 -- 43.79 percent
1986 -- 47.55 percent
1987 -- 48.56 percent
1988 -- 49.73 percent
1989 -- 51.97 percent
Reagan's history proves you are making assertions without having facts on your side.
Which brings me to Reagan's famous quote, which I think applicable to you for your "liberal' argument:
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."The Reagan years ran between 32 to 51 percent. Fact.
You say, "America has a high 123% GDP-to-dept ratio based on a bipartisan CHOICE. America wants to influence the world because its tends to be profitable...."
"Profitable" to owe nearly $33 trillion? You make a liberal's argument and you make it poorly.