Serious question, that has me worried

[Del Tachi]

2016election, the national debt peaked at about 120% of GDP shortly following World War II in 1946.  By 1980, debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen to 30%.  How do you think that this happened, considering that at no point between 1945 and 1980 was the federal budget balanced?

Hint:  Not trying to be facetious; this is a very important math/economics/civics lesson.

[Del Tachi]

2016election, the national debt peaked at about 120% of GDP shortly following World War II in 1946.  By 1980, debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen to 30%.  How do you think that this happened, considering that at no point between 1945 and 1980 was the federal budget balanced?

Hint:  Not trying to be facetious; this is a very important math/economics/civics lesson.

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

Considering that the national debt was being added to every year between 1945 and 1980 (as there were no balanced budgets during that time), yet debt as a  % of GDP fell from 120% to 30%, what must have happened?

Hint:  Remember, that we are COMPARING debt to GDP.  So if debt is going ↑, how is debt as a % of GDP going ↓?  What must the relationship be between the change in debt and the change in GDP?

I really want you to get this.

[Del Tachi]

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

His measure was a ratio.  Debt over GDP.  The cited high point post WWII was 120%.  That number went down.

The way it went down was not by the debt going down.  It went down by the GDP rising much faster than the debt.  (Denominator rose faster than numerator.)

That is indeed a potential answer to our present debt problem, but our current 1.5% GDP growth isn't getting that done.  If 1.5% GDP growth as far as the eye can see is indeed the new normal, then the debt ratio will not improve and it could reach a day of reckoning.

1.5% GDP growth as the "new normal" will definitely be the case if we keep slowing public expenditures at the risk of "growing the debt".

After the monstrous debt we had after World War II,  we bumped up public spending to build the Interstate Highway System, national electric grid, send GI's to college and buy them homes, and invest in medical/defense research.  This Cold War-fueled discretionary spending spree was why economic growth in the 20th Century was so astounding.

If we want the economy to grow in a way that makes the $20 trillion dollar debt a non-issue, we have to be willing to spend additional trillions of dollars to make similar kinds of investments in our 21st century economy.  

[Del Tachi]

Neither candidate addresses this matter adequately; if they did, they'd by down by 20 points and 47 states.

The key, I would think, is to reduce and eliminate the deficit.  Such a step would reduce the percentage of GDP that interest on the debt is.

This, by the way, might actually be something the parties could agree on.

Do you realize what kind of tangible costs this would have on all Americans, yourself included?