I could point you to David Graeber's DEBT or just to David Korten's AGENDA FOR A NEW ECONOMY to get a better perspective on what we need to do about the games banksters and warmongers play. The problem is that you major in minors, even children while you let the ill-gotten gains go unpunished and uncorrected.
There is also the June Winoski "Two Santas" meme that Thom has raised showing that when they are in power, the GOPimps declare that "deficts do not matter." Then, when they are out of power, they scream about the deficit and spending. It is a craven political tactic, and it works because people understand "the economy" as individual participants and not as economy managers.
"Money" is a symbol of value, even a claim on future value. In a fiscally responsible economy, money is in balance with the creation of real wealth, not phantom wealth. It is about products and services that have value, not about the games played with money to make money. The difference is illustrated by the contrast between "venture capital" put into companies doing real economic creativity, and the games played by commodity speculators and playing on the computer churn on Wall St. The people who helped my brother-in-law get a great piece of medical technology into production and use helped a valuable tool save lives and money in many rural and third-world settings. They took a risk on his great idea and the business plan to make it work.
Halliburton used Cheney's warmongering to go from bankruptcy to billions. There was not only no risk, there was pure corruption and waste.
When you compare the Bush/Cheney war debts with the purported price of Social Security and Medicare, it is massive v. puny. When you go farther and look at where the waste in Medicare is to be found, you see the Corporate privateer entitlements in insurance and pharm, not what it would really cost us to take care of those who need healthcare.
Finally, if you want to save the economy, you need to deal with the waste, not stop doing what will pay off down the line. Spending on infrastructure and people in need saves money in the long run. Leaving people in despair and poverty is very expensive because we not only have to do something for them, we don't get their healthy, educated working tax revenues.
A lot of desperate people take a chance of all or nothing on the craps table or Lotto. If they had an offer of a "sure thing" and did not have any money to put into it, don't you think they would try to borrow what they would need to get in on it? In that sense, borrowing more money from ourselves to invest in a sure thing makes all the sense in the world. If it increases a bad relationship between debt and our actual economic capacity, it is not where the problem is.
Take the example of Iceland. They told the banksters to shove it up their bankster ass. They held together as a society and found a way to exchange value with each other and do things that increased value. They understood that saving the society was more important than believing in the symbols of value that had been corrupted by the evil deeds of others.
You use the name of a Hawaiian hero, a mighty man of the people. You might want to bone up on what that is all about. It sure as hell is not about giving away the island to pay off the pirates.