Ever tried to buy a house with cash?

That’s essentially what foes of responsible public bonding are saying when they urge defeat of Questions 2 through 5 on the Nov. 6 ballot in Maine.

To be sure, debt and deficits are front and center at every level of public discourse these days. From the upside-down mortgages of American homeowners to the crushing public debt of nations in Europe, there’s much to be said for thinking long and hard about the long-term consequences of buying what you cannot — today — afford.

It’s the word “afford” we need to define.

While you might not be able to afford the price of a home out of pocket, you also cannot afford to be homeless. So you bargain with financiers whose due diligence decides to whom they will lend “their” money (more accurately, “our” money, since much private lending comes from public facilities such as the Federal Reserve, at rates incredibly favorable to the banks).

You can choose to rent, but if everyone made that choice, the housing market would collapse. So would the banking and retail industries that aid our economy and boost the net worth of homeowners.

So, you choose equity. You make the purchase. And even though you’re never entirely sure what will happen to your income in the future, you own more of your asset with every payment. Meanwhile, you and your children are safe and secure.

A robust market in public debt is essential to deliver essential services, provide liquidity in capital markets and smooth the rough edges of capitalism where private lenders and the free market often defer.

We saw what a malfunctioning credit market wrought by poor lending standards can do to the global economy. And we know what a debt-derived fiscal cliff looks like.

But putting a brake on all borrowing will no more solve those problems than tax cuts have solved the nation’s employment woes.

As with any debt, fiscal conditions in the future are as vital as those in the present when deciding to borrow.

Put another way, there really is no debt problem — only an ability-to-repay problem, wrought by a staggering economy and the predilection of some to trim public spending at a time we desperately need to finance growth.

Public debt such as is being requested by Questions 2 through 5 runs little risk of default. Maine’s credit rating is solid, and tax-supported debt per Maine resident — $845 — is well below the $1,117 national median, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Interest rates are extremely low, so paying for worthy projects will only get more expensive.

Do those who oppose Questions 2 through 5 oppose bonded funding for these projects, or the projects themselves?

If they oppose bonded funding, let’s hear an alternative funding proposal.

If they oppose the projects: What is it about upgrading technical training, preserving farmland, rebuilding local roads and ensuring clean water don’t they like?

They say we can’t afford investing in the future. We say we can’t afford not to.

We can’t cut our way to prosperity, and we can’t afford to sacrifice critical, job-creating investments in our future when that decision, for some, is being made solely within the prism of today’s economy.

These bonds will create jobs, improve lives and boost revenue needed to repay the debt.

In the meantime, we have cleaner water, robust public education, a road system that transports goods and people, and the open space the world expects of Maine.

Few people can buy a house with cash.

The rest of us — optimistic about the future — have to borrow.