"Zero possiblity of the United States going bankrupt"?
That claim is entirely bogus. It is impossible for a country that prints its own currency to reach a point where it cannot pay the debts it owes in that currency.
What we have in our modern world is fiat money. It's money by government decree. If the US government decrees that it will print $14,000,000,000,000 in new $100 bills tomorrow and pay everyone off with those pieces of paper, it could. It would create a jump increase in prices, and all those who held dollars currently would suffer. It is in effect a repudiation of the debt. Those new bits of paper you got will not buy more than a small fraction of what they did before. Lest we forget, Weimar Germany printed its own currency.
What's that risk today? There are credit default swaps you can buy to insure, say, $10 million of U.S. Treasuries from default over the next ten years. They currently sell for around $45,000. That might overstate the risk of default of the United States by a fair amount, but they do tell us that people place a non-negligible probability of default on those bonds and put their money where their mouths are.
To anticipate one argument, the position of the US as the world's reserve currency gives creditors a little less worry, but only a little. On one hand, it's harder for the US to repudiate via inflation because the rest of the world demands our dollars as backing for their own currency (including the Chinese.) On the other, there are incentives for the US to take advantage of that position to export a little of its inflation elsewhere in the world ... and it does.
Goyomarquez then adds this zinger:
Cutting government spending during a recession is exactly equivalent to raising taxes and is therefore a mistake. Conservatives have yet to explain how balancing the budget is going to reduce unemployment, I assume that's because they know it won't.
In a very simple Keynesian world, this viewpoint might work (though if taxes are paid for by reduced savings, a simple Keynesian would say spending cuts are MORE harmful than tax increases.) But most economists would also recognize that public investment can crowd out private investment. If you are spending and borrowing you are taking funds that could be used by the private sector and diverting them to the public sector. By reducing government spending, workers and firms have space to find other mutually beneficial exchanges that produce goods and employment.
Government cannot create wealth directly. It diverts resources from private to public use with the assumption that its use is better than the former wealth holder's. It has little incentive to consider the private costs of those public funds it diverts. And when the government is as hyperactive as the present one is, those private costs may dwarf the public benefits.