Does the ability of the US to acquire debt morally obligate them?

Premise 1) The US has a great ability to acquire debt.

Premise 2) The US is running an annual budget deficit exceeding $1trillion this year

Premise 3) Many nations and people in the world can be assisted with more money

Conclusion: The US has a moral obligation to continue to increase its deficit in order to assist the people in the world (via wars, via financial aid to foreign nations, via domestic grants, via tax breaks [for both those making less than the median income and at the corporate level]).

Are we morally obligated to give what we do not have yet, under the assumption that we can earn it in the future?

I for one do not take out a line of credit on my house, despite my ability to, to make large charitable contributions. And I would consider it illogical to call me immoral for not doing so.

We certainly are not obligated to assist the nations of the world, though people would like to say we are.

No, there is no moral obligation to assist other nations. We do it in our own self-interest.

There is a moral obligation for America to be a blessing to other nations but that is not why we are in debt. You have politicians who want to stay in power and we have given them a credit card to use "free" money to buy everyone off, make masses happy as possible. It's robbing from future generations for short term gratification. Given this corruption in most politicians that is why I favor term limits of one term and redirect their other corruption of desiring riches to high monetary incentives for doing stuff like lowering costs of government as a percentage of GNP, low unemployment rates, high quality control, etc.

fredmertzz said:

Premise 1) The US has a great ability to acquire debt.

Premise 2) The US is running an annual budget deficit exceeding $1trillion this year

Premise 3) Many nations and people in the world can be assisted with more money

Click to expand...

All true.

Conclusion: The US has a moral obligation to continue to increase its deficit in order to assist the people in the world (via wars, via financial aid to foreign nations, via domestic grants, via tax breaks [for both those making less than the median income and at the corporate level]).

Click to expand...

The US has a moral obligation to increase its deficit in the short-term until unemployment goes back down to normal levels. The US budget is not a personal pocketbook; it's perfectly OK to run a deficit during bad economic times. In fact, this helps get the economy back on track. In the longer term, the US has no such obligation to increase its deficit, because generally increasing the deficit when times are good does NOT help people...it causes inflation.

A lot of different causes, industries, people, etc. can be "helped" with more money now. Using debt or any other government/treasury/Federal Reserve maneuver to cause that to happen does not ONLY provide "help," however, but also a liability along with it.

Moving me into a $1.3 million home on 50 acres with a 20-ft ceiling garage converted into a microbrewery "helps" me in certain ways, but putting a $1.3 million liability on my balance sheet does not help me. The fact that I am set up nicely to start brewing some great beer does not guarantee I will be able to pay back that $1.3 million. The investment would be thrilling, but the liability could ultimately kill me.

What can be done with money for "good" has to be weighed against its true cost, both immediate, mid-range and long-range.

Thus the conclusion is not true. Not universally false necessarily, but certainly not true.