>("in and of itself", whatever that means) It means that "debt is bad" is a ridiculous proposition. Again, debt cannot exist without an equal and off-setting

>("in and of itself", whatever that means) It means that "debt is bad" is a ridiculous proposition. Again, debt cannot exist without an equal and off-setting asset, by definition. So, saying "there's too much debt!" is functionally equivalent to saying "there's too many assets!" >Are Mullen, Walker and Obama not "serious people"? Politicians, all of them. Don't really care what Mullen or Obama's opinions about debt are. As far as Mr. Walker, it appears he's appealing to populism and Republican talking points. Because I'm sure he understands that talking about "unfunded liabilities" only looks at one side of the ledger, as a scare tactic. I mean, those liabilities aren't going into the fire, they're being received by real people, spent into the economy. Where is that counted?