Agree.

But it should be private investment, not government. The government can only spend what it takes from someone else. The "taking" can be via taxes or by debasing the currency which takes from those that have existing money.

When government spends, it is spending money that some private citizen could have spent had the government not taken it from them. The spending by government is "seen", while the unseen would be the money spent had the citizen got to keep the money that they had to pay in taxes.

The government has nothing to "invest". When it is said that the government created the roads, etc. that is incorrect. The citizen taxpayers created those roads and infrastructure. Had the citiznes not been there to tax, the government could have done nothing. Some people give credit to what "government" does, when in reality it is all private enterprise that probides the funds to do everyting.

Investment infers that the money being spent is on something that creates a return that can pay off the borrowing for the investment. The only way a government has any way of paying off anything they borrow for is by taxation. Government borrowing for current consumption involves increased total tax income needed in the future to pay off the borrowing. Is what the government spending now going to increase tax revenues enough in the future to pay off the debts incurred? Doesn't look like it to me. That means it is not a very good investment. Expanding a farm or ranch by taking on debt that has no chance of meeting repayment obligations would not pass muster by any good loan officer. Yet we as citizens approve our government incurring debts that have no reasonable possibility of paying off.

Citizens can survive without a government but a government can not survive without citizens to tax. We look to the wrong entity for salvation.

John