Always good advice coming from Robert Reich. No one wants to pile on more debt, but there’s a time for everything, and since past administrations, predominately Republican, have been deficit spending for years, now is not the time to say enough. Twenty years ago was the time to say enough, but we were too busy giving tax breaks to billionaires, creating loopholes for corporations, and allowing financial markets to run riot. HOW that money is best put to use is the issue for me. This idea that private industry is somehow superior to public industry—less costly, more efficient, more productive and effective—is a myth that must be shattered with all the historical evidence we have to the contrary; indeed, in every country where public industries have been sold off and privatized, the results have proven disastrous, with consumers AND taxpayers feeding the greed of corporations and investors. Remember the Post Office? Once upon a time, it wasn’t reviled as a Stalinist creature of “tax-and-spend” liberals. Now, of course, we have mercenary armies fighting our wars at taxpayer expense, and no one seems to mind—in principle or the increased expense.

David Evans asks if a family that is in debt and getting deeper in debt should borrow more. That depends on whether or not the money is going to be used well. If they are borrowing just to buy fun stuff, of course not. On the other hand, if they are borrowing to go back to school to improve their position in the labor market, then yes, that makes sense. Borrowing now to improve infrastructure and employment with the goal of better long term footing makes sense. Cutting a few million more off government payrolls when we are at 9% unemployment carries some pretty obvious downside, even if it does save some money short term.

The problem is that (ideally) government would use deficit spending when the market needs a boost, spending that money on projects like repairing infrastructure and providing jobs when the private sector can't/wont (because who wants to build manufacturing and service capacity when there aren't any customers), BUT it gov would also run a surplus during the up years, paying off those debts and preventing inflation and bubbles by pulling more money out of the economy than is put in. Unfortunately, no politician wants to be in the latter role, so they spend in both situations. Do we need to fix this? Of course, but doing it now would virtually guarantee a depression. Doing it when the economy is on sounder footing is the only viable option. (Of course, that means the Tea Party needs to come out yelling again, even if we have a Repub president at the time.)

yes, rates are low but that doesn't make borrowing prudent. Take a look at what easy borrowing has done for Greece. Or ask someone who took an equity loan on their house five years ago.

Debt is cheap only if you have financial discipline to pay off the debt. Sadly our government has not shown a hint of that discipline. The fact that the infrastructure is crumbling begs the question of why? I for one was under the impression that maintenance was a standard budget item, that even a government with half a brain would pay the fixed costs necessary to maintain our vital infrastructure. Apparently we've been suffering from a government with less than half a brain for quite some time. Sadly, a quick roll call reveals that those brainless fools from the past make up a majority of the current government as well. Continuing the to fall for the same old empty promises would seem to be completely brainless. Rather than take on debt, I want to see us return to a sustainable budget. Stop the extraneous pet projects, social engineering, favors to cronies, and vote pandering. Return that money to its intended purpose, infrastructure will be fixed, people will be employed, and no new debt required.