When we use the word debt we denote it as a bad thing outright these days
When applied to politics we assume the debt provided nothing in return.
Both are assumptions and not always correct. If he debt went to reducing
taxes and services it was wasted money. If it went to services along to keep
the status quo it was wasted money.
If the debt came about because it invested in small business through invocation
and it provided services with the added value of training programs and other
net benefit resources it was an investment in the future that would see money
coming back in the future it was money well spent.
I don't regard debt as a plus or minus unless I know what it was spent on
The other issue with this is what did each premier do before the other came to
power sometimes leaders coming into power are saddled with the programs and
direction of those who came before those are other factors we have to know before
making a value assessment. Also add the direction or lack of same by the Feds
in their programs
I didn't see any of those factors listed here .