Thank you. Sorry you had to waste your time for my laziness. I did in fact look it up and found this:
Post-Keynesian economics:
Conversely, some Post-Keynesian economists argue that deficit spending is necessary, either to create the money supply (Chartalism) or to satisfy demand for savings in excess of what can be satisfied by private investment.
Chartalists argue that deficit spending is logically necessary because, in their view, fiat money is created by deficit spending: one cannot collect fiat money in taxes before one has issued it and spent it, and the amount of fiat money in circulation is exactly the government debt – money spent but not collected in taxes. In a quip, “fiat money governments are ‘spend and tax’, not ‘tax and spend’,” – deficit spending comes first. Chartalists argue that nations are fundamentally different from households – governments in a fiat money system can issue liabilities to pay off debt, and thus (assuming they only have debt in their own currency), need not go bankrupt, unlike households, which cannot issue liabilities.
Usually, when I bring up the “like a family” argument, I actually call out that the difference is that the family can’t just print more money.
And when it is the only option, well, that is where I see the real WWIII scenario. I believe they will HAVE to monetize the debt and those to whom we owe will no be happy. And our perceived miliary weakness will not help. As I said before Obama was president, they will start moving on countries we “protect” like South Korea.
But I’ve noticed, in the vein of “spend and tax”, that they are having a hard time getting the money out there. It’s probably why they want big government. If they hire lots and lots of people and pay them lots of borrowed money, well, that gets it out there. But I’m not seeing that - yet.