As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.
Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.
I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.
