Seems pretty mixed to me. The Debt went down while members of the Greatest Generation were in charge up until Reagan, who drove the Debt up up. This persisted until Clinton, a Boomer, pushed the Debt back down. Then Bush 2 reversed course and pushed the debt up again, and that has persisted through the present administration.
Reagan being a member of the greatest generation does not matter. His constituency was heavily baby boomers who as a generation wielded considerable strength. The oldest of the Baby Boomers were already pushing 40 and had garndered considerable political power and clout. I would say reagen was in between the beginning shift of power from the greatest generation to the baby boomers.
Ah, you're one of those who makes a statement (like Debt being based on generational differences) and when confronted with actual facts, says "it does not matter." Okay, let's go with that. So if Reagan's constituency is Boomers, what difference does it make? Clinton's constituents and Bush 2's constituents were Boomer's as well. One decreased the debt and one increased it. It all supports my statement that it's pretty mixed.
Look above, being 18 years old does not translate into them holding political power. The current mess is the fault of baby boomers (and older generation X) greed and wrecklessness. It is understandable given that they grew up during the most prosperous era in American (world?) history and it may have skewed their outlook, but the result is that everyone is paying for it now.
And now that the Gen Xers are in their 40s, what are they doing to change things for the better? Or are they just content to blame their predecessors? What will Gen Y say about them in a decade?
The power to vote does indeed matter but political clout is gained through pandering to issues that those have wealth and willing and able to donate to further cause. Do you think that any politician can win by pandering purely to the 18-25 year old demographic? They would not even gain enough endorsements and funds to run a national campaign. This is not to mention that there just isn't enough in terms of numbers.
Isn't that what a representative democracy is all about? Isn't it about representing ALL of the people instead a given segment (like a generation) or of just a majority? What's your point?
This is not to mention the fact that despite beliefs to the contrary, Obama has been increasing national spending at the slowest rate than any other president in recent memory. A lot of the current increase in spending was locked in place before Bush 2 left office and combined with tax rate decreases which resulted in decreased revenue has netted out resulting in additional climbing of the national debt.
You actually have to go back decades to find a presidency — Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s to be precise — in which spending happened at a slower rate.
Again, is there a point to your statement? We pretty much agreed earlier on in this thread that the most meaningful measure of the Debt was against the GDP. I'm not sure how your statement about spending is really relevant. So we spent more in every presidency since Eisenhower -- and we STILL reduced the debt until Reagan came into office. And we did it AGAIN while Clinton was in office.