I think the people who are talking about how their personal lives feel so much better because they got rid of their debts, are missing a VERY important point.

That is, that it isn't going into debt or not going into debt which is important. There is not only nothing magic about not borrowing money, it can actually be a horrible decision to stick to.

Because what matters economically, is WHY you go into debt.

Whether we are talking personal finances, or national economies, what you do regarding debt can be smart, conservative self-discipline, or it can be stupid, short-sighted and self destructive idiocy.

Simple example: your car engine throws a rod, and dies, through no fault of yours. Just bad luck. It will cost more than you have in cash, to pay for the repair. The "never borrow money; if you can't afford it, don't do it" car owner will sit down and say "okay, no car till I find the cash." In the meantime, no car, means they have to quit the higher paying job that they had on the other side of town, and find something in walking distance, or with free transportation provided, so that they can continue to pay for the rest of their life needs. Because they refuse to borrow, their life declines in quality accordingly.

The comparative person who thinks that SOME debt, which is actually necessary to further the big picture best interests, is a GOOD thing. So they get the car fixed or replaced, and gradually work their way out of debt.

On a national scale, if the reason for spending more than the government took in in revenues is so that people can do self-indulgent things which contribute nothing permanent to the economy, everything will go to crap. But if they are spending more in order to do things such as fund higher education, or to fund research to enable better use of resources, then the added debt will be a brilliant act that will BENEFIT the nation.

Historically, when nations have refused all debt, and simply waited for money enough to do things, their economies have been worse than sluggish, and have had to wait for serendipitous occurrences such as the sudden discovery of gold deposits or something, in order to progress.

INTELLIGENT use of debt has worked consistently well.

Well, I guess I'll disagree. Not using credit: 1) it gives me confidence in my financial stability and what I can do.This translates into confidence in the economy, 2) It allows me to put, at least, a little bit away for that rainy day, 3) As we all saw in 2008/2009 when the economy went down many who were in debt lost houses, cars, etc, because one or both house hold jobs were lost or time on the job reduced and they were living off of credit cards.

I understand to buy a house or car, yes, a mortgage is needed. But credit cards are not a wise way to operate. I don't like the idea of making bankers rich off of interest just to buy a pair of jeans. Credit cards, also, push prices up. Manufacturers and distributors know people will use credit so they maintain higher price margins. Without credit cards people have to be more selective and sellers have to use price to attract them (supply and demand).

you have to be disciplined when dealing with finances.

Debt isn't the only part of measuring the economy though.

Trade deficit is also an important factor. If a nation imports more than it exports, then that is money removed from domestic circulation. While some may stay here in the form of jobs, a good chunk of the money is going overseas to bolstering someone else's economy.

If we want a healthy economy, we can't have a trade deficit in regards to domestic circulation, i.e. more money going overseas than remaining here at home. Thus one has to look at whether the jobs created -- and the money retained at home through such -- is enough to offset the money spent by purchasing goods from another nation. The less currency circulating at home, the less room there is for economic growth and the greater the risk of inflation.

Don't forget that Nixon got rid of tariffs with China....and most of our cheaper goods now come from China. Plus American businesses have been investing there too.

And Nixon was a Republican.

In the last month or so the Canadian PM refused to agree with the idea of renegotiating NAFTA. Of course, the media ran constant news articles of how Canada won't and American manufactures and farmers will loose big time. The Canadian government had until midnight, October 1st to respond or face higher import duties.

Well, guess what????? I just watched the late news (11:00pm EST) and the Canadian government capitulated at the last minute. The playing field will be a bit more level between our two nations now.

The news and democrat's would go to any lengths to stop our President from achieving his goal of "Leveling the playing field". So this raises the questions:

1. Why were the democrat's and media so opposed to having even trade tariffs?
2. Why did Clinton, Bush and Obama sign or agree to agreements that placed our farmers and industry at such a disadvantage with Canadian competitors? (as well as European, Mexican and Chinese)?

These three presidents were working against our own people!. People keep asking WHY but those that oppose the President never respond!

We can only assume they possess the "Anything to bring down President Trump" is okay irregardless of how it effects our nation!

Democrats can't run on the welfare vote if people are working and supporting themselves. They are clearing trying to damage our country. It appears media has an agenda.

The Dems love doom and dismal times. Fact is they can not stand prosperity under a republican president

And they spend their days trying to poke holes in it..as opposed to enjoying it

Professional..mourners

^^^^^^^^^^^^ The question is why are the news media and democrat's like this??? Those supporting them never address this issue. I have my opinion but that means little.

WHY?