Sure, I agree in theory, but spending national debt means issuing more bonds right? That’s how it worked in the US to my understanding and I assume that’s how debt is paid for in most countries. Bonds are assets and assets are bought by people with money. Increasingly the people with money and the people buying assets are the ultra-wealthy. I have no doubt that when evaluated the majority of governmental debt can be traced to or through massive corporations and the ultra wealthy. But I’d love to be enlightened here, when I hear a government issueing debt I assume that means our government is getting poorer and borrowing money from the rich.

Yes, I completely agree that that “juice is worth the squeeze” when done correctly. A government taking on debt and investing it in good train/tram/bus based public transit pays for itself and the interest in economic productivity and efficiency over time. But a government led by conservatives and centralists, taking out 400 billion in debt before they slash corporate taxes, to fund military contracts do not seem like good stewards of that cash. How inefficiently will that money be spent in terms of creating benefits for the common worker? How many jobs with a thriving wage will be created vs CEO bonuses paid?