Is the size of the U.S. national debt a pressing issue?

[bedstuy]

Not nearly to the degree that people think it is.  People tend to analogize the national debt to a household budget which is an insane comparison.

The problem with debt is that it needs to be repaid with future taxes.  But, the way people repay debt has always been through economic growth.  If you suddenly stop spending, you both put your economy in decline and end up being penny-wise-pound-foolish on investments.  If you refuse to keep building for the future, you end up with a shrunken economy that has less income to tax.  If you spend smartly, a large future debt isn't as problematic because there's more income to tax.

Yes, because it represents a tremendous transfer of wealth from the working class upward to those who lend us our own money on interest (the Federal Reserve) and to foreign despots and financiers.

Don't the working class need to have a tremendous amount of wealth for it to be transferred away from them?  Last time I checked, working people in America are poor and live hand to mouth with no assets to speak of.   

[bedstuy]

C'mon. All the lefties (not here, but in general) thought the debt was a big issue when Bush started two wars, now you don't care.

That's different.  When you're having decent economic growth and low unemployment, you need to be running a balanced budget.  That's part of how you afford to step in when there's an economic shock.
 
Also, wasting $2 trillion on Iraq is different from paying firefighters, building bridges and sending senior citizens their Social Security.  You can't afford to waste $2 trillion on a war because it has far less multiplier effect.  Think about it, if you spend on social security, the money goes into the economy and people spend it.  If you spend money on a new bridge, it creates new efficiencies and economic activity for years in the future.  If you build a bomb, you help an arms manufacturer and then, you use it and its gone.