Good God, how far from the original point can we roam? All this stuff you posted has nothing to do with my original point, which is pathetically simple:
High levels of debt matter, because they put downward pressure on the relative value of a currency when valued in other currencies. This does not benefit the citizen.
That is not in any way a point which relates the federal budget to a household budget. Further, it is not an ideological argument. Further, I have no idea why you are interested in taking this discussion into the macroeconomical ether. I certainly wasn’t there.
I’ll add one more point here, though. Unless you can manage somehow to limit voting to only Americans with degrees in economics, none of this stuff matters. The vast majority of American voters will always view high levels of debt as “badness”, lower levels of debt as “goodness”, and arguments to the contrary as “suspicious”, if for no other reason than they can’t understand them.
Can you envision a presidential candidate trying to explain this to the pubic in a presidential debate?