When you take someone's money by threat of violence under the premise that doing so is a net positive for society you have a much greater obligation to pursue that result and sustainability is one of many considerations when it comes to whether or not something is a net positive for society.
You're a hypocrite, picking and choosing your argument to suit your position.
The same thing will happen to you if you don't pay your taxes or don't pay back your credit card debt.
And the extremely unlikely end result, jail, is exactly the same for both public and civil debt.
And that's the trouble with these stupid arguments. Not only are they childish extremes, anyone using them are all just massive hypocrites who want to pillage the commons for their own gain and have the rules always work in their favour, conveniently different when it comes to reining in monopolies, or using their excessive wealth to force others out of business, it all depends on which side they stand to gain most money out.
Then they just flip their argument on its head to justify their privileged position, which is maintained by a threat of violence.
Setting aside that obvious gaff, you’re comparing individuals being prevented from stealing people’s property to the government being allowed to. It doesn’t really make any sense.
Because it’s not tax payer money being squandered. How is that so hard to grasp?
Rich people run out of money making stupid bets. The federal government does not.