The united states existing as an economic superpower must have economic interdependence, we are the worlds top super power and without us every nation crumbles (except NK and probably cuba)
"the United States is the world leader and likely to remain there for decades. It has the greatest soft power in the world by far. The United States still receives far more immigrants each year (1 million) than any other country in the world. The United States leads the world in high technology (Silicon Valley), finance and business (Wall Street), the movies (Hollywood) and higher education (17 of the top 20 universities in the world in Shanghai’s Jaotong University survey). The United States has a First World trade profile (massive exports of consumer and technology goods and imports of natural resources)."
" is still the world’s leader for FDI at 180 billion dollars, almost twice its nearest competitor. The United States, spending 560 billion dollars a year, has the most powerful military in the world. Its GDP (16 trillion dollars) is more than twice the size of China’s GDP. As the first new nation, it has the world’s longest functioning democracy in a world filled with semi-democratic or non-democratic countries. Its stock market, at an all time high, still reflects American leadership of the global economy.
Furthermore, who is going to challenge the United States for global leadership? The Europeans? The Japanese? The Russians? The EU today has 12 percent unemployment – reaching 26 percent in Greece and Spain – almost zero economic growth, a declining population in many of its member states. The Japanese are suffering from a declining and rapidly aging population, lack of immigration, a Nikkei Index that is still more than 20,000 points below the level of 1988 and debt that equals 240 percent of GNP. Not to mention a weak economic growth in a last two decades. While Russia may have grabbed the headlines for hosing the forthcoming Olympics and Edward Snowden, it’s no super power. Russia has a trade profile of a Third World country, a GNP the size of Canada, which is less than 15 percent of the United States GDP, no soft power, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street or highly rated universities."
Though many countries are in huge financial crisis due to debts, and the majority of the western world are in debt. Debt has it's positives along with it's negatives.
Firstly, to address the example you used Weimar Germany is in no way a reliable example you can put forward for debt crisis. Germany in that time-period was only in a financial crisis due to the ridiculous war reparations that Germany was forced to pay through the Treaty of Versailles and the oncoming Great Depression. Germany soon recovered from this crisis through the coming of power of the National Socialist German's Worker Party (the Nazi Party) which is arguably one of Hitler's only good achievements. Within six years Germany was transformed from a practical third-world country to a superpower.
This is not the only example of this occurring. Numerous times has a country gone into debt to fix social and political problems; Alcohol Abuse, Civil Strikes and many others in particular. These problems can be fixed with a quick cash flow and normally are.
Government's borrowing money is essential in some cases. If we use a third-world country as an example, borrowing from developed nations can greatly increase the rate of industrialisation and development of nations; especially if economic partnerships are developed. Borrowing is a quick fix to national treasury problems and aids in the overall development of these countries without tax it's citizens too heavily.
In many cases you are absolutely correct with the negatives of debts. In popular cases debts spiral out of control (the modern United States for example) but with direct management these crises can be fixed.
All in all, governments should be able to borrow money. For the better nature and the standards of living of it's populace. National debt however is, in some cases, an unavoidable problem; but if handled correctly can be reduced and corrected.
Borrowing money to develop is a necessary strategy for any country. Bank print money or increase tax will create a lot of social problems. Meanwhile the demand of development is always higher than the nation's budget. Moreover, Developing economic is a politic problem which any government must to answer for their voters
Many who would sit on the yes side of this argument clearly need to realize that debt is the worst thing possible. Because it not only eliminates any chance of a clean credit rating, but debt created by the government via government borrowing practically makes one nation a slave to another (case and point: China and their financial relationship with the US). It also accumulates over time creating more debt that may lead to bankruptcy.
Second, borrowing money may help with deficits in the short term but the short term only. Many times the government takes out loans they accumulate as debt over time, this is unsustainable as it often results in the debt reaching "critical mass" and the bankruptcy of the government. Don't think that's bad? Well I am pretty sure interviewing anyone who grew up in 1930's Germany will tell you how splendid it was!
In conclusion it may create some great infrastructure and increase spending without taxing the people, but you or your children will pay for this unsustainable luxury when the debt finally collapses under its own weight.