[fells]

> To not have the money that you want to spend is, to me, the definition of spending too much.

I suppose no one should ever be able to take a loan.

[rileymat2]

This is not a simple situation.

Of course there are times when loans are great. However, through boom and bust cycles we have perpetually taken out loans.

So, you need to drill down, are the things we are spending on “capital improvements” for a better future or our operating expenses.

Interest? Military? Medicaid/care? Those will be expenses forever.

If you take anti cyclical view of it, when the stock market is at an all time high we should be paying debt, for when we need it later.

[firejake308]

Taking out a loan is okay, in the short term, if you have a plan to pay back your loan using income that you plan to obtain in the future but do not have available right now. THe US national debt has grown so large that the interest payments alone are like 20% of the federal budget, and that doesn't even touch the principal. It has reached pyramid scheme levels of borrowing, and no pyrmaid scheme can last forever. One day, lenders will lose confidence in their ability to get their money back and everything will collpase all at once.

In order to prevent that, the budget must be cut. People must be fired. Promising projects must be discontinued. The question is where to make the cuts and how, because cuts in the wrong places in the wrong way will end up making the problem worse. For me, working in healthcare/science/research, I see the cuts to the NIH spending as a bad cut, because it sacrifices a lot of future revenue from scientific R&D. Same with cutting USAID and losing a ton of soft power that could be used to persuade developing countries to let in American companies. Or firing, say, IRS employees, since they're the ones who actually bring in the revenue. So there are good cuts and there are bad cuts, but the point is that eventually cuts must be made.

[nessbot]

> eventually cuts must be made.

This is logically (and in a simple way) false. Incomes could also increase.

[bnjms]

A loan implies money will be paid back. What should be cut so the debt can be paid back.

[skywhopper]

The debt is being paid off when it’s due, every time, as it always has been. If we want to lower the total debt, cutting spending is not the only option. Money that the government spends increases economic activity and in some cases more than pays for itself in returned revenue. Raising taxes that have been lowered or eliminated since the last time we had a surplus (at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency) is step one in getting things under control.

[1024core]

If you're having to take a loan to pay for basic stuff for your family, that means you're either spending too much or earning too little.

[nessbot]

The government's debt is not the same type of thing as household debt. Can you elaborate on how you think they are the same? Do you believe there are not other factors besides just credits being less than debits?

[mmcwilliams]

So people shouldn't take out a mortgage on a house? Shelter is pretty basic.