Why can't they? Surely they can indebt every person with accumulating govt deficits (currently 62k in the US) so what's different?
If I spend all my money but still owe creditors more, that's what I'm on the hook for. That's real debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_t...
"Economists regard seigniorage as a form of inflation tax, redistributing real resources to the currency issuer. Issuing new currency, rather than collecting taxes paid out of the existing money stock, is then considered in effect a tax that falls on those who hold the existing currency."
That makes inflation distortionary, not some ideal tax on wealth. Governments can't just run away with inflation as an alternative to tax.
What if I say they do something bad with that debt too, is it still OK?
b) Interest rates are being paid for decades via taxes, money that could have been put to use much better. I'd say it's similar enough and don't think "it works differently" is an argument here
Put as question: how much would you like legally binding financial advice by someone up to their ears in debt?
"Legally binding" and "advice" are mutually exclusive concepts. And it's 100% possible you can give great financial advice and be in debt. "Max out your 401k and a Roth IRA" is great advice in 99% of circumstances. Just because someone is paying off high interest credit cards instead doesn't make the advice invalid or their choice of priorities incorrect.
Anyone who has applied a modicum of thought to the issue. The US already has more per-capita public funding going to healthcare than any other nation, we simply don't get a good return on it because that is perceived as "socialism".
And pursuing a highly conservative fiscal policy (far off the right side of the Overton window) is not going to change that, nor advance the cause of said "socialist" policies. It's flabbergasting that you would suggest that as any kind of a reasonable cause-and-effect.