This does, however, raise the interesting and oft-neglected point that corporate accounting and government accounting operate along very different principles. If I'm running a modestly profitable burrito company and decide I could be making even more money if I opened even more stores and so go sign some leases and spend a bunch of money building out the new kitchens, we don't register this as suddenly "spending" far exceeding "revenue" and freak out about the deficit. What we say is that the balance sheet now contains both more liabilities (debt to someone who loaned me the money) but also more assets (all the kitchen equipment I bought) and then my challenge is to earn a return on my investment in those assets before they depreciate (i.e., break). But a company that thought it had the opportunity to make a lot of high-value low-cost purchases would never avoid doing so simply because it might involve increasing its outstanding stock of debt.I think that this viewpoint could be really helpful if applied to the United States government. There is a lot of potential to invest in infrastructure right now, while prices are low. Sure, not all infrastructure works out and there is a lot of poor decision making in government process. But businesses make mistakes too. The trick is to, on average, make more good decisions than bad.
However, in the long run the stock of public goods (roads, bridges, powerlines, canals, and so forth) have been key to the success of a nation from ancient times. In the modern world, with the focus on human capital, I think education might have the same status as a good long term investment. Perhaps this is a case where we should think of government more like a business??