I did read the entire article and it does give an excellent perspective from both sides. I can understand how borrowing money is considered sound, fiscal policy in the sense that Americans don't feel the "pinch." However, isn't wartime about the country making sacrifices for the good of the war effort?
Now, the counter to that seems to be that these are different times and the country is quite wealthy compared to how it was in previous wars. The argument is made that lowering taxes now and borrowing money to pay for war has boosted the economy so that paying back the debt won't be as hard. I guess it's convenient that a new administration will have to hold that burden though.
The thing that worries me, and some economists as evidenced by the article is that we're simply putting off the inevitable. That money will affect the economy, it will have to be paid back and its going to come at a time when the baby boomer generation is retiring, in desperate need of Medicare, there won't be enough money for social security and add that to the facts that A.) we don't know how much longer this war will go on, and B.) when it is over, there will be costs associated with reconstruction, both in Iraq and here. Plus medical costs for veterans, something that current vets are having trouble getting covered for right now.
This is all assuming that there won't be a wide scale disaster; natural or otherwise, in the US during that time. Add to that rising fuel costs, a raging debate on climate change, an economic powerhouse developing in China, and a booming population... sure, we all feel pretty comfortable now. We haven't had to sacrifice a thing for this war; unless you count a stable Middle East and thousands of lives in our military.
You can't put a price tag on that.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....