There's a name for that: Neganumeriophobia. It exists:

The absolute value function was created in 325 AD by 'famous' Italian mathematician Antonio Numero. After a horrific accident during his childhood, Antonio developed Neganumeriophobia, a fear of negative numbers. Despite much risk to his own personal health, he dedicated his professional life to creating a valid mathematical formula which would remove negative numbers from existence.
I give you $1 for goods and/or services. This mean I have ($1), after having paid for said goods and/or services. Done. And I've just explained to you how our economy works. Ta-da! Spending equals income to businesses, income to businesses equal sales, and sales equal jobs. You can talk about GDP in terms of how much our "job creators" have created, produced, "trickled-down", whatever. But you can't ignore that GDP also represents how much was spent. You know, negative numbers. OMG, neganumeriophobia! 
For instance, not every country can run a trade surplus. For every trade surplus (+), somewhere there is an equal trade deficit (-). The entire global economy nets to zero. Running a trade surplus doesn't make you morally superior in any way (looking at you Germany and China); it just means you are one side of the ledger. Suppressing wages so you can send your real resources (ie, export Mercedes-Benz and cheap, plastic goods) to other countries in order to keep your population employed is not "superior". In most cases it would be a grounds for war. Creating an economy that can consume its own production is infinitely more difficult than the economic models exporters choose. And it would require an increase in wages (gasp!). Producers (+$1) cannot exist without consumers (-$1). Yet, all we hear about is The-Joan-of-Arc-of-Export-Economies: All we do is give, give, give. And all you do is take, take, take. 

Similarly, every country in the global economy can be divided into three sectors: domestic private sector (households and businesses), government sector, and the foreign sector. By identity, the sum of these sectors must sum to zero (to the penny):
Sectoral Balances 

Notice that during the Clinton "surplus" years that everyone applauds, the private sector balance was in deficit. That is, spending more than it earns, largely fueled by the bubble. Until it burst. After the recession, the private sector briefly returned to a small surplus position in 2004 before it decided to binge on even more debt, this time using houses as an ATM. And we all know how that turned out.
Also notice that every time the U.S economy enters a recession (shaded areas), the government deficit widens. Why are we always so surprised about this? Yes, the deficit/debt has exploded since 2008. At the same time, we've not seen this kind of financial crisis since the Great Depression. And that was ~80 years ago. So if we are so concerned about the size of the deficit, we should focus on unemployment and 40 years of wage stagnation (government subsidizes our #1 employer Wal-Mart because of its low wage/poor benefits business model). Predictably, as unemployment rises and falls, so does the deficit:

Unemployment and Deficits

This is because the deficit is largely endogenous, unless Congress does something really stupid, like The Sequester™. That is, when revenues plunge (causing unemployment to surge) -- as was the case in the 2008 global financial crises (GFC) -- automatic stabilizers increase (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc). It's basic math. Recent deficits are largely a result of the GFC, not the cause. And in the current environment (households deleveraging and persistent trade deficits), a goal to "balance" the budget in the U.S. is mathematically impossible without destroying our economy.   

Yes, the government has a spending problem. It's not spending enough. When an over-leveraged household sector that is saving and paying down debt (thanks GFC) creates a lack of aggregate demand, some other sector has to spend. Not every sector can save -- ie, "tighten its belt" --  at the same time. It's how our economy works, so don't shoot the messenger. And please learn the difference between private sector debt and public debt. Of which the former is what we really should be concerned about, not the latter: Household budgets are not analogous to federal budgets. And there's a movie for that, courtesy of moi:


As The New Yorker reports: Al Qaeda Disbands; Says Job of Destroying U.S. Economy Now in Hands of Congress.