IMO it's best to think of the deficit as a % of GDP. Under Carter it was about 2.5% of GDP and under Reagan it was around 4%. The problem with Carter's deficit is that it was financed with high interest rate debt. Year to year the deficit ranged from maybe 2.5-4,5% of GDP until Clinton who had a surplus until the dot.com bubble and and then followed by 9/11 under W. Even then the deficit was about 1-3% of GDP until the financial collapse where the deficit zoomed up to 10% of GDP. I think that's what we're looking at here - maybe worse (WW2 had about 20% deficits). Since then the deficit dropped to around 3% and edged up to around 4-5%. The good thing is that interest rates are essentially 0.I have no problem with general bailout process (specifically there are tons of issues, like picking winners and losers)
My main problem is in the long term, the national debt increase through the process is never reconciled whether they profit off of it or not. They system never gets put on a more solid foundation, then something else comes up and it just adds more debt.
Edit: To add some perspective, looking at total debt to GDP, Japan's is 235%, which is worse than Venezuela. The US is around 105%, the UK is 85% and Iraq is around 50%.
Last edited: