202 trillion? I'd be quite interested to hear where that number comes from, if you don't mind. 20 Trillion I probably would have swallowed but 200 I'd like a source for.
Even if you're right, though, I think it's hardly a point that should give republicans leverage. We're going to disagree on this, but here it is: a lot of democrats think that liberal policies can actually decrease spending in the medium to long term. The health reform most liberals actually wanted is a good example; we figured that by taking the fat insurance company profits out of the equation, we'd actually save money which could be used to fund efficiency research and pilot programs, ultimately saving us even more money. Preventative care available to all would save us money both in the ER, and by increasing economic activity (keeping people from getting too sick to go to work).
Similar arguments can be made for infrastructure investment, resource efficiency (a.k.a. "Green" energy practices), freer immigration policies, and so on. I can get into some of those with you if you like, but I'd need to muster my thoughts on them before getting into it, so I'll leave it at health care for now.
See, it's not that liberals don't care about the debt, or don't see the seriousness of the debt predicament (although I'll admit, if that 202 trillion figure means anything, it's more serious than I realized). Often they believe that their policies are at least as effective at reducing the debt as their conservative counterparts (in the long term).