Say, Looks Like That Supply-Side Stuff Works After All

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact is, whether you're willing and able to accept it or not, Government spending is not funded by the sale of Treasury securities. Rather, our federal government has the power to create currency to fund its operations.

The government could print currency to fund all spending. Should they?

 

[Red Front]

How many dollars are "in our economy"?

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

1. Currency in circulation: This includes all physical currency—coins and paper money—that is in circulation, i.e., not held in bank vaults.
2. Demand deposits: These are checking accounts in commercial banks, from which money can be withdrawn at any time without any notice to the bank.
3. Time deposits: These are interest-bearing deposits with specified maturity dates, such as certificates of deposit (CDs).
4. Money market mutual funds: These are investments that earn interest by investing in short-term, high-quality investments like Treasury bills.

The U.S. Federal Reserve classifies the money supply into several categories:

• M0: This is the most liquid measure of the money supply. It includes coins and notes in circulation and other money equivalents that are easily convertible into cash.
• M1: This includes M0 plus checkable (demand) deposits and traveler's checks.
• M2: This includes M1 plus savings deposits, time deposits less than $100,000, and money market mutual fund balances.
• M3: This includes M2 plus large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. However, the Federal Reserve no longer tracks M3 since 2006.

The so-called "national debt" represents the total value of all outstanding Treasury bills, notes, and bonds that the U.S. government is liable to pay to holders.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

1. Currency in circulation: This includes all physical currency—coins and paper money—that is in circulation, i.e., not held in bank vaults.
2. Demand deposits: These are checking accounts in commercial banks, from which money can be withdrawn at any time without any notice to the bank.
3. Time deposits: These are interest-bearing deposits with specified maturity dates, such as certificates of deposit (CDs).
4. Money market mutual funds: These are investments that earn interest by investing in short-term, high-quality investments like Treasury bills.

The U.S. Federal Reserve classifies the money supply into several categories:

• M0: This is the most liquid measure of the money supply. It includes coins and notes in circulation and other money equivalents that are easily convertible into cash.
• M1: This includes M0 plus checkable (demand) deposits and traveler's checks.
• M2: This includes M1 plus savings deposits, time deposits less than $100,000, and money market mutual fund balances.
• M3: This includes M2 plus large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. However, the Federal Reserve no longer tracks M3 since 2006.

The so-called "national debt" represents the total value of all outstanding Treasury bills, notes, and bonds that the U.S. government is liable to pay to holders.

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

That is awesome!!!

The assertion that the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time is based on the understanding that the government is the sole issuer of its currency.

The Federal government spent about $6.3 trillion last year.
Show that the money supply at the end of 2022 was $6.3 trillion higher than at the end of 2021.

 

[Red Front]

The government could print currency to fund all spending. Should they?

To begin, it's important to realize that in our current system, the government already effectively 'prints money' to fund all spending. This doesn't mean physical currency is printed for every dollar spent, but instead, the government credits the bank accounts of recipients of government spending with new digital dollars.

This is not the same as saying the government can spend limitless amounts without consequence. All spending has real-world impacts and can be inflationary if it pushes the economy beyond its productive capacity. Inflation occurs when spending in an economy outpaces the real goods and services available for purchase.

TOO MUCH MONEY, CHASING AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
​

The constraint on government spending is not how much money can be created, but the availability of real resources, labor, materials, technology, etc in the economy. So, should the government 'print money' to fund all spending? It already does, and it can continue to do so, but this should be balanced against the productive capacity of the economy to prevent inflation. The government should allocate funds to projects that build and maintain our infrastructure. That increases productivity, growing our economy.

To the broader question implied, "Should the government stop issuing securities?" Treasury securities serve as a monetary policy tool for the central bank to manage interest rates, and they provide a risk-free asset that can be useful for various actors in the economy, such as pension funds and banks. The sale of Treasury securities doesn't fund government spending but it has other purposes in our economic system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To begin, it's important to realize that in our current system, the government already effectively 'prints money' to fund all spending. This doesn't mean physical currency is printed for every dollar spent, but instead, the government credits the bank accounts of recipients of government spending with new digital dollars.

This is not the same as saying the government can spend limitless amounts without consequence. All spending has real-world impacts and can be inflationary if it pushes the economy beyond its productive capacity. Inflation occurs when spending in an economy outpaces the real goods and services available for purchase.

TOO MUCH MONEY, CHASING AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
​

The constraint on government spending is not how much money can be created, but the availability of real resources, labor, materials, technology, etc in the economy. So, should the government 'print money' to fund all spending? It already does, and it can continue to do so, but this should be balanced against the productive capacity of the economy to prevent inflation. The government should allocate funds to projects that build and maintain our infrastructure. That increases productivity, growing our economy.

To the broader question implied, "Should the government stop issuing securities?" Treasury securities serve as a monetary policy tool for the central bank to manage interest rates, and they provide a risk-free asset that can be useful for various actors in the economy, such as pension funds and banks. The sale of Treasury securities doesn't fund government spending but it has other purposes in our economic system.

To begin, it's important to realize that in our current system, the government already effectively 'prints money' to fund all spending.

Whether they sell a Treasury the week before the spending or the week after, the result is the same. So what?

 

[Red Front]

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

That is awesome!!!

The assertion that the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time is based on the understanding that the government is the sole issuer of its currency.

The Federal government spent about $6.3 trillion last year.
Show that the money supply at the end of 2022 was $6.3 trillion higher than at the end of 2021.

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

1. Currency in circulation (cash held by the public)
2. Checkable deposits (bank deposits that can be withdrawn by check or digital equivalent)
3. Other deposits, such as savings deposits, money market deposits, and time deposits.

The correlation between government spending and an exact equivalent increase in the money supply is not direct or immediate. Money supply doesn't only depend on the amount of government spending but also other factors like private bank lending, central bank actions, and even international flows of money.

When the government spends, it adds reserves into the banking system. But what happens next can vary. Banks can lend out their excess reserves, creating more deposits and thus increasing the money supply. Or, they can choose to hold onto these reserves and not lend them out, in which case the money supply would not increase by the full amount of government spending.

Moreover, the central bank can also influence the money supply by conducting open market operations, which is essentially buying or selling government bonds. When the central bank buys bonds, it increases the reserves of banks, giving them more capacity to lend, which can increase the money supply. Conversely, if it sells bonds, it drains reserves from the banking system, potentially decreasing the money supply.

This is why we don't see a 1:1 correlation between government spending and changes in the money supply.

You can find these explanations in various economic textbooks, such as "Macroeconomics" by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells: https://amzn.to/44HTF0W ......or in Federal Reserve resources like the one available at this link: What is the money supply? Is it important?.

 

[Red Front]

To begin, it's important to realize that in our current system, the government already effectively 'prints money' to fund all spending.

Whether they sell a Treasury the week before the spending or the week after, the result is the same. So what?

While the specific timing of Treasury security issuance relative to government spending may seem inconsequential, it does matter for the broader understanding of how government finance operates in a fiat currency system.

The sequence of operations here is important for understanding the big picture. When the government spends, it effectively creates money by crediting bank accounts. Treasury security issuance comes afterward, which doesn't fund the spending, but is instead a tool to manage the level of reserves in the banking system.

This understanding refutes the common misconception that the government must 'borrow' or 'tax' first in order to spend. Instead, government spending is effectively a process of money creation, and the issuance of Treasury securities is a separate process of managing banking system reserves and influencing interest rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Broadly, the money supply is made up of:

1. Currency in circulation (cash held by the public)
2. Checkable deposits (bank deposits that can be withdrawn by check or digital equivalent)
3. Other deposits, such as savings deposits, money market deposits, and time deposits.

The correlation between government spending and an exact equivalent increase in the money supply is not direct or immediate. Money supply doesn't only depend on the amount of government spending but also other factors like private bank lending, central bank actions, and even international flows of money.

When the government spends, it adds reserves into the banking system. But what happens next can vary. Banks can lend out their excess reserves, creating more deposits and thus increasing the money supply. Or, they can choose to hold onto these reserves and not lend them out, in which case the money supply would not increase by the full amount of government spending.

Moreover, the central bank can also influence the money supply by conducting open market operations, which is essentially buying or selling government bonds. When the central bank buys bonds, it increases the reserves of banks, giving them more capacity to lend, which can increase the money supply. Conversely, if it sells bonds, it drains reserves from the banking system, potentially decreasing the money supply.

This is why we don't see a 1:1 correlation between government spending and changes in the money supply.

You can find these explanations in various economic textbooks, such as "Macroeconomics" by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells: Amazon.com ......or in Federal Reserve resources like the one available at this link: What is the money supply? Is it important?.

The correlation between government spending and an exact equivalent increase in the money supply is not direct or immediate

I know that's why......the following claim is wrong.

The assertion that the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time is based on the understanding that the government is the sole issuer of its currency.

Yes, based on a mistaken understanding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While the specific timing of Treasury security issuance relative to government spending may seem inconsequential, it does matter for the broader understanding of how government finance operates in a fiat currency system.

The sequence of operations here is important for understanding the big picture. When the government spends, it effectively creates money by crediting bank accounts. Treasury security issuance comes afterward, which doesn't fund the spending, but is instead a tool to manage the level of reserves in the banking system.

This understanding refutes the common misconception that the government must 'borrow' or 'tax' first in order to spend. Instead, government spending is effectively a process of money creation, and the issuance of Treasury securities is a separate process of managing banking system reserves and influencing interest rates.

The sequence of operations here is important for understanding the big picture.

Not really.

This understanding refutes the common misconception that the government must 'borrow' or 'tax' first in order to spend.

Not at all. I think almost everyone knows that the government could simply print to fund some
or all of their spending. Just as almost everyone knows that it would be a mistake to do so long-term.

 

[Red Front]

The correlation between government spending and an exact equivalent increase in the money supply is not direct or immediate

I know that's why......the following claim is wrong.

The assertion that the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time is based on the understanding that the government is the sole issuer of its currency.

Yes, based on a mistaken understanding.

When I refer to the government being the "sole issuer" of its currency, I mean it in the sense that every dollar originated from government spending. Commercial banks do create 'money' when they issue loans, but they do so by creating deposits that are denominated in the government's currency. That currency ultimately comes from the government's capacity as the issuer of the currency.

Regarding the correlation between government spending and money supply, it's important to clarify that an increase in government spending indeed increases the money supply, but it does not lead to a one-for-one increase. That's because the banking sector and the private sector also play a role in determining the total money supply via the process of lending and spending. For example, when banks make loans, they create deposits, effectively adding to the broad money supply.

Nevertheless, the point is not that every dollar in the economy directly corresponds to a dollar of government spending. Rather, it's that every dollar traces back to government spending in some form, whether it be through direct spending or through the financial system's multiplier effects. The government's role as the currency issuer is fundamental to the existence and functioning of the modern monetary system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I refer to the government being the "sole issuer" of its currency, I mean it in the sense that every dollar originated from government spending. Commercial banks do create 'money' when they issue loans, but they do so by creating deposits that are denominated in the government's currency. That currency ultimately comes from the government's capacity as the issuer of the currency.

Regarding the correlation between government spending and money supply, it's important to clarify that an increase in government spending indeed increases the money supply, but it does not lead to a one-for-one increase. That's because the banking sector and the private sector also play a role in determining the total money supply via the process of lending and spending. For example, when banks make loans, they create deposits, effectively adding to the broad money supply.

Nevertheless, the point is not that every dollar in the economy directly corresponds to a dollar of government spending. Rather, it's that every dollar traces back to government spending in some form, whether it be through direct spending or through the financial system's multiplier effects. The government's role as the currency issuer is fundamental to the existence and functioning of the modern monetary system.

When I refer to the government being the "sole issuer" of its currency, I mean it in the sense that every dollar originated from government spending.

I saw your error the first time you posted it. You don't have to keep repeating it.

Look at government spending over just the last 10 years, what percentage of that is
the current money supply?

Regarding the correlation between government spending and money supply,

You didn't claim there was a "correlation"

the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time

You said it was cumulative. But it's not. Not even close.

it's important to clarify that an increase in government spending indeed increases the money supply,

An increase? What if the spending shrinks by $1 billion a year?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I refer to the government being the "sole issuer" of its currency, I mean it in the sense that every dollar originated from government spending. Commercial banks do create 'money' when they issue loans, but they do so by creating deposits that are denominated in the government's currency. That currency ultimately comes from the government's capacity as the issuer of the currency.

Regarding the correlation between government spending and money supply, it's important to clarify that an increase in government spending indeed increases the money supply, but it does not lead to a one-for-one increase. That's because the banking sector and the private sector also play a role in determining the total money supply via the process of lending and spending. For example, when banks make loans, they create deposits, effectively adding to the broad money supply.

Nevertheless, the point is not that every dollar in the economy directly corresponds to a dollar of government spending. Rather, it's that every dollar traces back to government spending in some form, whether it be through direct spending or through the financial system's multiplier effects. The government's role as the currency issuer is fundamental to the existence and functioning of the modern monetary system.

Nevertheless, the point is not that every dollar in the economy directly corresponds to a dollar of government spending.

You lied? Or were you simply mistaken?

 

[Red Front]

The sequence of operations here is important for understanding the big picture.

Not really.

This understanding refutes the common misconception that the government must 'borrow' or 'tax' first in order to spend.

Not at all. I think almost everyone knows that the government could simply print to fund some
or all of their spending. Just as almost everyone knows that it would be a mistake to do so long-term.

it's clear that we may have a different view of what the "common" understanding is. From my experience and research, many people do indeed operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow in order to fund its spending. This misconception is a cornerstone of a lot of fiscal conservatism and debt alarmism.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that using the phrase "print money" can be misleading. The process of creating money is not so much about a physical act of printing, but more a series of accounting transactions that take place digitally. Additionally, every spending is essentially an act of money creation, while every taxation is an act of money destruction.

One of the historical examples that demonstrates the idea of taxation as a process of money destruction is the case of the tally sticks in England.

The tally stick system was a form of monetary record-keeping that was used for several centuries, from the Middle Ages up until the 19th century. These were wooden sticks that were split lengthwise, with notches cut along one edge to denote different amounts of money. One half called the "stock", was kept by the party receiving the payment, while the other half, the "counterfoil" or "foil", was kept by the party making the payment. This ensured a form of primitive but effective record keeping, as the two halves of the stick could be matched to confirm payment.

The key point here, in terms of the discussion about taxation and money creation/destruction, is what happened when taxes were paid. The King or Queen would accept tally sticks as payment for taxes. Once received, the tally sticks were destroyed often by being burned.

Finally, the idea that it would be a "mistake" for the government to create money to fund its spending long-term lacks nuance. Any discussion about the "right" or "wrong" level of government spending or money creation should take into account the specific economic context, including factors such as the level of productive capacity, the rate of inflation, and the state of the business cycle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it's clear that we may have a different view of what the "common" understanding is. From my experience and research, many people do indeed operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow in order to fund its spending. This misconception is a cornerstone of a lot of fiscal conservatism and debt alarmism.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that using the phrase "print money" can be misleading. The process of creating money is not so much about a physical act of printing, but more a series of accounting transactions that take place digitally. Additionally, every spending is essentially an act of money creation, while every taxation is an act of money destruction.

One of the historical examples that demonstrates the idea of taxation as a process of money destruction is the case of the tally sticks in England.

The tally stick system was a form of monetary record-keeping that was used for several centuries, from the Middle Ages up until the 19th century. These were wooden sticks that were split lengthwise, with notches cut along one edge to denote different amounts of money. One half called the "stock", was kept by the party receiving the payment, while the other half, the "counterfoil" or "foil", was kept by the party making the payment. This ensured a form of primitive but effective record keeping, as the two halves of the stick could be matched to confirm payment.

The key point here, in terms of the discussion about taxation and money creation/destruction, is what happened when taxes were paid. The King or Queen would accept tally sticks as payment for taxes. Once received, the tally sticks were destroyed often by being burned.

Finally, the idea that it would be a "mistake" for the government to create money to fund its spending long-term lacks nuance. Any discussion about the "right" or "wrong" level of government spending or money creation should take into account the specific economic context, including factors such as the level of productive capacity, the rate of inflation, and the state of the business cycle.

From my experience and research, many people do indeed operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow in order to fund its spending. This misconception is a cornerstone of a lot of fiscal conservatism and debt alarmism.

We could print (or create money out of "thin air"). Fiscal conservatives are against that idea.

 

[Red Front]

When I refer to the government being the "sole issuer" of its currency, I mean it in the sense that every dollar originated from government spending.

I saw your error the first time you posted it. You don't have to keep repeating it.

Look at government spending over just the last 10 years, what percentage of that is
the current money supply?

Regarding the correlation between government spending and money supply,

You didn't claim there was a "correlation"

the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time

You said it was cumulative. But it's not. Not even close.

it's important to clarify that an increase in government spending indeed increases the money supply,

An increase? What if the spending shrinks by $1 billion a year?

It appears you're confused regarding the statement that every dollar originated from government spending. This refers to the idea that government spending precedes taxation and lending. It's not a claim that the current stock of money is exactly equal to cumulative government spending over time, which would indeed be incorrect.

To clarify, when the government spends, it does so by crediting the reserves of private banks held at the central bank. This adds to the money supply, as these reserves can then be lent out by the private banking system to create additional money (through the process of fractional reserve banking). So, in a sense, all money does originate from government spending because this spending provides the initial reserves that the private banking system requires to function.

In response to your question about what happens if government spending shrinks, the effect on the money supply will depend on several factors. If government spending is reduced but everything else remains the same, then there would likely be a contraction in the money supply over time as loans are repaid and not replaced by new lending. This is because, with less government spending, there are fewer reserves being added to the banking system and hence less capacity for banks to create new money through lending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It appears you're confused regarding the statement that every dollar originated from government spending. This refers to the idea that government spending precedes taxation and lending. It's not a claim that the current stock of money is exactly equal to cumulative government spending over time, which would indeed be incorrect.

To clarify, when the government spends, it does so by crediting the reserves of private banks held at the central bank. This adds to the money supply, as these reserves can then be lent out by the private banking system to create additional money (through the process of fractional reserve banking). So, in a sense, all money does originate from government spending because this spending provides the initial reserves that the private banking system requires to function.

In response to your question about what happens if government spending shrinks, the effect on the money supply will depend on several factors. If government spending is reduced but everything else remains the same, then there would likely be a contraction in the money supply over time as loans are repaid and not replaced by new lending. This is because, with less government spending, there are fewer reserves being added to the banking system and hence less capacity for banks to create new money through lending.

It appears you're confused regarding the statement that every dollar originated from government spending.

I'm not confused about your error at all.

It's not a claim that the current stock of money is exactly equal to cumulative government spending over time,
Thank goodness.
Tell the guy who said the following.....

"the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time"

That he was wrong.

If government spending is reduced but everything else remains the same, then there would likely be a contraction in the money supply over time as loans are repaid and not replaced by new lending.

This year's spending is say $7 trillion. Next year, $1 billion less. The year after, $2 billion less. The third year, $3 billion less.

Where is the contraction? It's just a tiny bit smaller "expansion"

 

[Red Front]

From my experience and research, many people do indeed operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow in order to fund its spending. This misconception is a cornerstone of a lot of fiscal conservatism and debt alarmism.

We could print (or create money out of "thin air"). Fiscal conservatives are against that idea.

Your comments are based on the assumption that fiscal conservatives understand that the government has the ability to create its own currency but are against this concept. However, this understanding may not be as widely acknowledged as you suggest. Many people, including fiscal conservatives, still seem to operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow to finance spending. This misunderstanding underlies a significant portion of the rhetoric around 'balancing the budget', 'fiscal responsibility', and the need for austerity measures.

In a fiat money system, a currency-issuing government like the U.S. is not financially constrained in the way households or businesses are. It doesn't 'print money' in the sense that we think about with physical cash, but rather, it spends by marking up the accounts of recipients. This is an act of money creation and it happens irrespective of whether the government issues Treasury securities or not.

This does not mean that there are no constraints on government spending. The real constraint is not financial, but inflationary. If the government spends more than the economy can produce, it will result in inflation. But if government spending is used to enhance the productive capacity of the economy - for instance, through investment in infrastructure, education, or research and development - then this can enable more spending without causing inflation.

When fiscal conservatives argue against 'money printing', they are often implicitly arguing against government spending that supports social programs and aids the working class and the poor. This is not necessarily because such spending is economically unfeasible - as I've explained, a currency-issuing government can finance such spending without needing to tax or borrow. Rather, it is often grounded in an ideological belief in small government and skepticism about the role of government in supporting societal wellbeing.

 

[Red Front]

It appears you're confused regarding the statement that every dollar originated from government spending.

I'm not confused about your error at all.

It's not a claim that the current stock of money is exactly equal to cumulative government spending over time,
Thank goodness.
Tell the guy who said the following.....

"the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time"

That he was wrong.

If government spending is reduced but everything else remains the same, then there would likely be a contraction in the money supply over time as loans are repaid and not replaced by new lending.

This year's spending is say $7 trillion. Next year, $1 billion less. The year after, $2 billion less. The third year, $3 billion less.

Where is the contraction? It's just a tiny bit smaller "expansion"

You're right that a marginal decrease in government spending from one year to the next, such as the billions you're suggesting, would not necessarily result in a contraction of the money supply. Rather, it might result in a slightly slower rate of expansion, as you've suggested.

What I was referring to was the scenario where government spending is substantially reduced, or cut altogether, and not replaced with equivalent private sector lending. In this case, as existing loans are repaid and money is destroyed in the process, the overall money supply would likely contract, all else being equal.

As for the quote you mentioned - "the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time" - it is correct in the sense that government spending is a primary way in which money is introduced into the economy. This does not mean, however, that the current money supply is equal to the cumulative total of all government spending ever, as that would ignore the role of bank lending in money creation and the destruction of money through loan repayment and taxation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your comments are based on the assumption that fiscal conservatives understand that the government has the ability to create its own currency but are against this concept. However, this understanding may not be as widely acknowledged as you suggest. Many people, including fiscal conservatives, still seem to operate under the misconception that the government must tax or borrow to finance spending. This misunderstanding underlies a significant portion of the rhetoric around 'balancing the budget', 'fiscal responsibility', and the need for austerity measures.

In a fiat money system, a currency-issuing government like the U.S. is not financially constrained in the way households or businesses are. It doesn't 'print money' in the sense that we think about with physical cash, but rather, it spends by marking up the accounts of recipients. This is an act of money creation and it happens irrespective of whether the government issues Treasury securities or not.

This does not mean that there are no constraints on government spending. The real constraint is not financial, but inflationary. If the government spends more than the economy can produce, it will result in inflation. But if government spending is used to enhance the productive capacity of the economy - for instance, through investment in infrastructure, education, or research and development - then this can enable more spending without causing inflation.

When fiscal conservatives argue against 'money printing', they are often implicitly arguing against government spending that supports social programs and aids the working class and the poor. This is not necessarily because such spending is economically unfeasible - as I've explained, a currency-issuing government can finance such spending without needing to tax or borrow. Rather, it is often grounded in an ideological belief in small government and skepticism about the role of government in supporting societal wellbeing.

Your comments are based on the assumption that fiscal conservatives understand that the government has the ability to create its own currency but are against this concept. However, this understanding may not be as widely acknowledged as you suggest.

You should take a poll of fiscal conservatives and ask them if they are in favor of the government running the printing presses to pay for spending. Post the results here.

When fiscal conservatives argue against 'money printing', they are often implicitly arguing against government spending that supports social programs and aids the working class and the poor.

When they argue against "money printing" they are arguing against "money printing".
Arguing against wasteful, damaging social programs is a different argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As for the quote you mentioned - "the total number of dollars in an economy is a result of cumulative government spending over time" - it is correct in the sense that government spending is a primary way in which money is introduced into the economy. This does not mean, however, that the current money supply is equal to the cumulative total of all government spending ever, as that would ignore the role of bank lending in money creation and the destruction of money through loan repayment and taxation.

I'm glad I could show you the error in your original claim.