No I'm not. I know what your argument is, and it's disingenuous. It's like saying that you only have one pet in your apartment while glossing over the fact that the pet is an elephant.

Nobody disputes the idea that more debt can result in slower growth. But there's a huge difference between saying that growth with high debt levels has historically been about 2.2% (compared to a more desirable 3%+ with lower debt) and saying that high-debt-growth has been -0.1%. That's an error of 220% in the wrong direction.