Democratic policies are better for the economy than Republican policies.

[Tenshot13]

Almost every person that buys a house, attends college or start a business has more debt than income, there are exceptions but in general.

But you do agree not having debt is better.  If we own houses in the same neighborhood, same square footage, same lot size, but mine is paid off and yours isn't, I'm in better shape financially, correct?  Even if you are making more money, if your bills keep putting you further in debt, while I'm completely out of debt, which is better?

[Fau Teixeira]

governments aren't people .. you can't compare personal budgets to government budgets, especially when we have currency by fiat. it's worth whatever government decides and they can print as much or as little as they want. 
There are ways to modify global currencies that would address that, but in the meantime, government debt is pretty meaningless. if politicians choose to ignore it (and 90% do) then it doesn't matter.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But you do agree not having debt is better.  If we own houses in the same neighborhood, same square footage, same lot size, but mine is paid off and yours isn't, I'm in better shape financially, correct?  Even if you are making more money, if your bills keep putting you further in debt, while I'm completely out of debt, which is better?

Absolutely.  I agree that is better.  But most people don’t have an option of paying cash for a house.....

So which is better renting an apartment or going into debt and buying a house?  Most of the time buying a house.

Which is better going into debt to buy a car or lose your job because you can’t get to work?

Which is better a town going into debt to buy an ambulance or not having an ambulance because the engine is blown on the old one?

Debt isn’t always a bad thing. 

[CF DolFan]

Almost every person that buys a house, attends college or start a business has more debt than income, there are exceptions but in general.

Sorry. I meant you shouldn't have more debt payments than you can pay back. If you make $50,000 a year you might buy a $200,000 home but you sure as heck aren't going to buy a $2,000,000 house even if they let you do it. Why? Because you know you can't pay it back. That doesn't stop our government from spending money they don't have.

[Tenshot13]

Absolutely.  I agree that is better.  But most people don’t have an option of paying cash for a house.....

So which is better renting an apartment or going into debt and buying a house?  Most of the time buying a house.

Which is better going into debt to buy a car or lose your job because you can’t get to work?

Which is better a town going into debt to buy an ambulance or not having an ambulance because the engine is blown on the old one?

Debt isn’t always a bad thing. 

When all things are equal, it is always better not to be in debt than to be in debt.  Buying a home and renting an apartment are not equal.  I didn't say debt isn't necessary, I said not being in debt is better.  When you have two states, one that is majorly in debt and continues to rack up more and more debt, and one that has a surplus, it's not difficult to see which is a better.  To ignore this key fact and brush it off like Fau is doing makes this conversation pointless.  There is a much larger picture. 

[Dave Gray]

Sorry. I meant you shouldn't have more debt payments than you can pay back. If you make $50,000 a year you might buy a $200,000 home but you sure as heck aren't going to buy a $2,000,000 house even if they let you do it.

That's not even black/white true.  A house is an asset with a value.  If you buy a $2,000,000 that's going to be worth $2,500,000 in the next two years, you should, even if you can't "afford" it.  Some entire real estate markets are built on this idea.

In South Florida, if you save to afford a house, you'll never afford a house because the houses appreciate faster than you can save.  It's a very non-traditional financial decision.

Now, that's not to say that it's always a good thing, because you get bubbles that burst and people have to foreclose.  ...but there are gray areas and nuance, is all I'm saying.

[CF DolFan]

That's not even black/white true.  A house is an asset with a value.  If you buy a $2,000,000 that's going to be worth $2,500,000 in the next two years, you should, even if you can't "afford" it.  Some entire real estate markets are built on this idea.

In South Florida, if you save to afford a house, you'll never afford a house because the houses appreciate faster than you can save.  It's a very non-traditional financial decision.

Now, that's not to say that it's always a good thing, because you get bubbles that burst and people have to foreclose.  ...but there are gray areas and nuance, is all I'm saying.

The huge issue I see in this example is that no one is going to buy your house in 2 years for a profit if you are in foreclosure. If you can't make the payments on an investment it is almost impossible to make money.   

[pondwater]

governments aren't people .. you can't compare personal budgets to government budgets, especially when we have currency by fiat. it's worth whatever government decides and they can print as much or as little as they want. 
There are ways to modify global currencies that would address that, but in the meantime, government debt is pretty meaningless. if politicians choose to ignore it (and 90% do) then it doesn't matter.

You can't even comprehend $22 Trillion in debt. Printing more money doesn't fix that problem because you are only debasing the currency at that point. The more you print, the less it's worth. Debt isn't a good practice in the long run. The only way out is to spend less than you take in and pay down the debt. This whole thing is going to colapse eventually, count on it...

[masterfins]

Almost every person that buys a house, attends college or start a business has more debt than income, there are exceptions but in general.

Similar to what Dave said, when buying a house or a business the amount borrowed should be at least equal to the value of the house or the business, otherwise the banks wouldn't loan you the money.  Hence, you have positive equity in those situations.  Sure there can be a housing market crash, or you can be a poor businessman and ruin the value of a business purchased, but typically in these instances the assets or more valuable than the debt so it's not a bad thing.  Student loans, credit cards, and car loans are a whole different story.  This type of debt can be very detrimental to a person's financial situation if over extended.

[pondwater]

Similar to what Dave said, when buying a house or a business the amount borrowed should be at least equal to the value of the house or the business, otherwise the banks wouldn't loan you the money.  Hence, you have positive equity in those situations.  Sure there can be a housing market crash, or you can be a poor businessman and ruin the value of a business purchased, but typically in these instances the assets or more valuable than the debt so it's not a bad thing.  Student loans, credit cards, and car loans are a whole different story.  This type of debt can be very detrimental to a person's financial situation if over extended.

So when it comes to the $22 Trillion debt in US economy. What's the asset? Is there positive equity? Is it appreciating or depreciating. In my opinion, most of the US debt would be like eating at a restaurant for every meal everyday and paying for it with a credit card while just making the minimum payment every month. The money is gone and there is nothing to show for it except a fat bloated belly. 

[Spider-Dan]

When all things are equal, it is always better not to be in debt than to be in debt.  Buying a home and renting an apartment are not equal.

Exactly, and MN's economy was better than WI's.  Therefore, their economies were not equal, just like buying a home vs. renting an apartment.

When you have two states, one that is majorly in debt and continues to rack up more and more debt, and one that has a surplus, it's not difficult to see which is a better.

I'd say the state with the significantly better economy is doing better.  That has more of an impact on the day-to-day lives of its citizens then some number on a ledger in the state controller's office.

[Spider-Dan]

Student loans, credit cards, and car loans are a whole different story.  This type of debt can be very detrimental to a person's financial situation if over extended.

You are using a very narrow definition of "equity" here.

If I take out student loans to get a degree, on paper that is negative equity because my increased earning capability (due to my degree) is not something you can appraise like a house.  Does that mean degrees are a waste of money?  Of course not.

The same can be said for a car loan.  If I take out a loan on a reliable new car, and that new car allows me to get (and keep) a better job than the jobs I can get taking the bus, or the jobs I lost due to having an unreliable bucket that breaks down all the time, that car loan can easily be worth the debt.  Credit card debt can be nearly anything (including school books or car repair) so that may fall in the same category.

Now, is it possible to take on ill-advised student debt, or car debt, or credit card debt?  Sure... and it's also possible to take on ill-advised mortgage debt, yet few would say renting is better than buying.  Debt by itself is not necessarily good or bad; it's how you manage the debt that matters.  Saving money for 30 years so you can pay cash for a house is avoiding debt, but it's also a terrible financial decision.

[pondwater]

yet few would say renting is better than buying.

Renting can be better than buying depending on the circumstances, there are very many factors to consider. They both have pros and cons. All things equal, neither is better than the other, at that point it comes down to choice. It's not one size fits all proposition. Anyone that says any different is a fool...

[masterfins]

You are using a very narrow definition of "equity" here.

If I take out student loans to get a degree, on paper that is negative equity because my increased earning capability (due to my degree) is not something you can appraise like a house.  Does that mean degrees are a waste of money?  Of course not.

The same can be said for a car loan.  If I take out a loan on a reliable new car, and that new car allows me to get (and keep) a better job than the jobs I can get taking the bus, or the jobs I lost due to having an unreliable bucket that breaks down all the time, that car loan can easily be worth the debt.  Credit card debt can be nearly anything (including school books or car repair) so that may fall in the same category.

Now, is it possible to take on ill-advised student debt, or car debt, or credit card debt?  Sure... and it's also possible to take on ill-advised mortgage debt, yet few would say renting is better than buying.  Debt by itself is not necessarily good or bad; it's how you manage the debt that matters.  Saving money for 30 years so you can pay cash for a house is avoiding debt, but it's also a terrible financial decision.

Which is why I said these types of debt "CAN BE" detrimental.

[masterfins]

So when it comes to the $22 Trillion debt in US economy. What's the asset? Is there positive equity? Is it appreciating or depreciating. In my opinion, most of the US debt would be like eating at a restaurant for every meal everyday and paying for it with a credit card while just making the minimum payment every month. The money is gone and there is nothing to show for it except a fat bloated belly. 

If you read the post by Hoodie that I quoted it had to do with going into debt by individuals, and my post (which you quoted) was in specific response to that.  It had nothing to do with what you are referring to above.