@Gunfighter (and ONLY Gunfighter):
The sentiment "We're out of money, we must stop spending money" is a popular and common one, and it makes sense for the every-day person in every-day situations, so it seems to apply to the government as well.
However, this is not the case.
Let us suppose you own a massive mansion that houses an enormous family and all the chazerai that they possess.
This worked well for about 50 or 60 years, but now you find yourself rather short on cash.
You CANNOT simply say, "Alright, no more spending on ANYTHING until the stash is replenished!"
You have a house to keep up.
You have to buy food.
And electricity.
And pay for water.
And toiletries.
And for natural gas.
And so on.
And you have to do this for your whole, massive family...we can argue that they, too, might chip in, but for the sake of argument, let's say they cannot move--since for the sake of our analogy no one is suggesting emmigration as an answer--and so you need to buy all these necessities...on a large scale...
You CANNOT simply stop and wait to build your stash back up.
You can stop spending on luxuries, yes...but what's a luxury?
The arts? Yes.
The TV? Yes.
The car?
At first you might say yes...and then you realize you also need to get to work, and the shuttle doesn't get you there on time, and no one wants to drive you...
A rough analogy, I know, but I think it makes the point--the US can't simply "stop spending money," as much as hokey politicians push their over-simplified answers on a public they assume will simple and unquestioning enough to buy a simple answer unquestioningly.
The US MUST cut back, yes...but it CANNOT stop spending money.
(And that "Mansion" analogy doesn't even assume that said family must pay for guns and bombs to protect them from other "neighbors" with guns and bombs, or that they must spend to keep up in research, as if they don't, they will ahve longer-term problems as well...so the solution is not so simple as to stop, sir.) :)