It isn't "dumb puritanism" when applied at the individual level.

The problem is private debt, particular private debt that doesn't self-liquidate (consumption). See Steve Keen (certainly no puritan on debt) on the distinction between public debt and private debt and its effects on the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLplU4WdX9A

A didactic video with a talking head and no use of the video medium whatsoever is extremely annoying. What about that video couldn't be done equally well or better in writing?

How much of our current Federal debt is just funding current consumption?

How much of the budget can truly be scored as investments? Perhaps not even the bulk of student higher education loans....

I agree entirely, but the sovereign issuing debt in it's a currency it controls (and let us assume, push come shove, the Treasury will side with the government over the Federal Reserve) is different than an individual taking on debt for consumption.

Keen is very good on this and has convinced me, despite it going against my inherent anti-debt biases.

I'd thought we'd reached, or will in short order, the debt to GDP ratio where, historically, countries sooner or later repudiate their debt one way or another (which of course includes inflation).

Of course the Federal Government isn't a "giant household", it's worse in many respects, with the decision makers generally not thinking past the next election, whereas there's a chance in a household the elders will be thinking of the children's futures (things like Social Security, and the general Zeitgeist that the government won't do stupid things like repudiate the debt, have of course helped to sunder the bonds between generations, something I think a lot of "elders" will heartily regret in due course).