Government spending accelerates inflation; and the only place in intelligent blogosphere where I find govt spending - through money raised by issuing debt- is a restraint on inflation is here.

Defending that statement through axiomatic response doesn't make it right either.

The US government raises money through issuance of debt paper and the Fed prints paper currency (money) against it. This arrangement arises because constitutionally the government cannot print money and the Fed can. The latter being the independent, private body vested with money printing authority.

So your response as to why a government with a printing press even bother to sell bonds is factually incorrect even to address it.

This is only as far the legal arrangement is concerned. That doesn't make the paper issued by the government, a debt in true sense. A true sense debt is one which is repaid through earnings/cashflows of the issuer. And the debt carries a healthy interest coupon etc. Firstly the US government never pays of its debt (that it doesn't have the ability to pay is what is pertinent to today's discussion). Can you show any period of time in recent history when the US government has effectively reduced the year-on-year debt outstanding through repayment only?

And when the interest rates you get by owning such debt paper is near zero, isn't it just a promise to repay principal? And that principal repayment coming through further debt issuance, essentially making it a ponzi scheme. The capital from the private sector, that you mentioned in your response, isn't enough to keep the ball rolling. Which is why debt outstanding keeping mounting ($20 tn as of date?) every year. Raising interest rates would first cause refinancing of debt at higher rates. Which is detrimental to both private capital and government debt. The Fed would be killing private capital taxes by raising rates and would be forced to print more money to help repay govt debt maturities.

So ironically status quo of near zero rates is best!

Therefore, just because an IoU is issued it doesn't make the arrangement holier than straight monetization of fiscal deficit (and I am not aware of any modern developed country practising monetization so that discussion is merely academic). Government carry on this "roundabout" way of funding its extravaganza precisely to appear 'technical'. And this charade causes analysts/economists to get their thoughts muddled. To see through this (inflation caused by printing money) one need not be a professional economist.. actually it helps if one isn't.