Putting it in terms of a non-profit is, I think, a useful way to discuss the issue.  Both the government and a non-profit are defined in great part on how usefully they spend money.

So, lets say you run a non-profit, and donations are really low.  You have 10 hungry people show up to your door, they need to be fed.  You have no money in the non-profit’s account.  Additionally, you have stopped taking a salary for quite some time, and your house is about to be foreclosed upon. 

But those 10 people are hungry.  You need $50 of food.  What do you do?

Lets say you decide to write a check on the non-profit’s account for $50 to buy food.   If you do that as a non-profit, your organization, at some point, will cease to exist.  Who will be helped then?

This is much the same with our Federal and many State Governments.  The tragedy is that since all this money was spent in the present, more critical needs will not be able to be dealt with in the future.

Unfortunately, much of our voting public does not believe, and has not been informed on the situation we are in, and the critical need to take action.  As such, we get both Democrats and Republicans elected that have seen a rise in spending that is not in concert with the level of revenue from taxes.  Just like people that are obese, once you acknowledge action must be taken, there are many and varied paths to get there.  But, talking about exercise and diet does not hit register with the obese person until he has a heart attack. 

BUT, since you brought it up, the thing about a cut is that when you do it, you stop spending the money now.  When you raise taxes, you hope that you will be getting more revenue, but you may get the same, more, or less in the future. 

It is like buying a new car you cannot afford, but you rationalize it  because you plan to get a better job next year. 

Balance now is not what is needed.  There has been spending, spending, and more spending over the past years.  Washington DC is an absolute boom town filled with very rich people compared to most of the nation, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the gravy train running.  Remember that the stimulus was going to be a one-time deal to keep us below  8% unemployment?  Now it is part of the baseline each and every year.  Bring the spending down to where it was before TARP and before the Stimulus packages – say 2008 levels plus inflation. THAT will make a difference.

If I go into debt spending money on meaningful things, does that mean I incur LESS debt than if I bought frivolous or wasteful things?  No, regardless of what I bought, I’m in debt for whatever amount I borrowed, regardless of what I spent it on.

If you want to make a case for ever-increasing federal debt, make it.  Are you saying that what we’re buying with this deficit spending is worth it, regardless of the cost?  Are you saying there are no drawbacks to such high levels of deficit spending.  Are you saying that the levels of debt you see in the charts linked above are no big deal. 

You’re indulging in meandering generalities here.  You say that I’m assuming too much about your position?  OK…what’s your position?

My position is clear:  the federal government needs to cut back drastically on its rate of spending and stop accumulating such high levels of debt. Yes, that means cutting back on good things that we’d ALL like the federal government to provide for us. It doesn’t matter if we’re buying wonderful things, if the debt level does long-term damage to our economy and society.  That’s exactly the threat that these skyrocketing debt levels pose. 

I do have to disagree with you about whether the quality and effectiveness of what we spend our money on matters. You’re right that cost is cost, but effect and purpose do matter. I find it hard to believe that a fiscal conservative would try to diminish worth and meaning in expenditures. That seams like the first place to look to cut the fat.  

No, elementary school math should be employed.  If you spend more than you take in, you eventually go broke. 

It doesn’t matter if you’re spending on worthwhile or meaningless things—both cost money.

How much longer should we wait—-and how much further in debt should we go—in order to let creativity take its course and find a holistic solution? 

I understand that ideology is important to the author of this blog as well as to the authors of the article it refers too, but should ideology trump creativity and wholistic reviews of the causes of our debt problems. I agree with the stance that this country spends too much, but that stance, in my mind, is incomplete without asking why is it that our revenue not enough to cover the services we want and need?