@powder Depends on what you mean by "balance the books" but one meaning of that is precisely what a government can't do. A good example is privatizing the post office or "running it like a business". No rural areas (where a majority Republicans seem to live) would get USPS delivery anymore because those branches wouldn't be profitable. All those poor motherfuckers would have to drive to the closest city that's big enough to have a profitable branch to get their mail or life-saving medications. Then UPS, FedEx, and the like would charge exorbitant rates in areas that didn't have postal delivery or pickup, if they were even an option.

Bridges are another government provided amenity that are not profitable. Unless you propose we have a toll at every bridge to pay for the upkeep of it? A government HAS to run at a loss if it's expected to provide services for free for the common good. Which is why I say anyone who thinks the government can/should be run like a business is a fuckin' idiot.

What do you know @fearlessfly I guess I did have a little left in the tank today.

@powder Those are fallacious arguments. Reducing costs, especially if you're just reducing costs for other people, in no way translates to income or profits (what would be needed to balance the books). And the amount of debt isn't the important part, it's the debt to income ratio. There are tons of businesses that are technically in debt that are doing just fine.
Also, I'm no economist, but many would talk about the importance of national debt.
Are you trying to say socialist ideas like this are bad, because the way you described them makes them sound pretty good and pretty vital...