Deficits are immoral when you don't have to pay for them. The debts racked up by Republicrats of all stripes (for the wars they all voted for, and continue to support, as well as the bailouts of Wall Street) are going to be paid by the next generation.

Your comparison of government borrowing for "stimulus" to borrowing to pay for a house is mistaken. People don't buy houses, or take out large loans when they expect their income to drop, or when they are trying to be thrifty. If the problem of the past decade or so has been excessive spending/consumption and borrowing, the solution is to curtail it - not shift the burden on the government to continue fiscal irresponsibility on the behalf of consumers and firms. The idea that one dollar spent by government creates one dollar+ in "stimulus" (whatever that means; consumption?) is a total fallacy, for if it were true, we could simply borrow and print our way to prosperity indefinitely by running deficits. Incidentally, it is precisely this logic that prodded individuals and firms to use their houses as ATMS and leverage themselves in order to stay competitive. At the base of this belief is the concept that wealth can simply be printed into existence by the creation of new credit. Printing presses don't create growth. They create distortions. They send signals to consumers and producers that cause a "cluster of business errors" that can't be explained by isolated instances of mismanagement. It's much deeper than some magic wand regulatory apparatus (as if institutions such as the SEC could be trusted to begin with) - it is the underlying incentive structure created by our monetary system that is the culprit. It is a monetary system controlled and manipulated by a government-sanctioned banking cartel that operates under the guise of preventing the very sort of crisis it has caused!

Another faulty assumption you make is that there really are institutions that are "too big to fail." There aren't. The people howling that a collapse of AIG or GM would destroy the market are the same ones who were in complete denial of reality for years. These firms are not too big to fail - they are too big to be kept around! They are destroyers of wealth! They are incompetent! They should be treated like every other business and sent to bankruptcy court to be sold off to competent managers. Keeping these zombie corporations alive, like the Japanese did in the 1990s, will only drag out the market correction. I highly recommend "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods if you want a true account of the reasons for this crisis.

How did they get so big? Do you side with the Randroid big business apologists and believe in the existence of the ubermensch entrepreneurs? Did they really just "compete" their way to the top? Of course they didn't. This is state-capitalism, not a free market, and the government has set the rules of the market place (enforced by gun-point) which most benefit the players with the most control over the state. So many on the left actually agree with those on the right who really attribute the accumulation of wealth in a few hands as a product of free competition! What a fairy tale! The system of property, tariffs, intellectual property ridiculousness, regulatory policies, subsidization of large-scale transportation and communication infrastructure, tax codes, outright cartelization of industry (the Federal Reserve, etc), and direct subsidies all ensure that wage labor is not paid its natural wage and that the rich will get richer. To the degree to which upwards mobilization is possible, it is possible because of the few segments of the economy that are relatively open to competition. CSAs and other forms of local business are a great example of a more free market in action.

You're absolutely right in pointing out the grant of corporate "personhood" rights as an example of state-capitalism, but that's just barely scratching the surface. Treating the symptoms of this system through social programs is the wrong solution for several reasons. First of all, it is ineffective, as witnessed by our 40+ year "war on poverty" during which poverty has not decreased at all. This is because you are entrusting the must dishonest institution - the government - with carrying out these policies. It's convenient to forget that government's operations are inherently oppressive since they are founded on the use of violence (why is the Internal Revenue "Service" armed to the teeth? Who are they serving?) Second, these policies simply make people more dependent on the state - trading one master (the corporation) for the supreme master (the government) which is the source of corporate power to begin with. Last, a dependence on the state inevitably leads to disaster as impending entitlement crisis is about to illustrate.