There are no free lunches, money doesn’t grow on trees, and you can’t can’t create wealth by printing more money.
At this point you are just deliberately misunderstanding what I’m saying. Even run of the mill Keynesnians like Krugman understand that deficit spending is a useful tool for boosting aggregate demand depending on the circumstance, even if they prefer the hamfisted ‘pump priming’ method. ALL government spending is ‘printing money’, just as taxes destroy it. This has been true throughout history and is especially true today as reserves are tracked on electronic balance sheets.
There is no ‘furthest out’ version of MMT. MMT is a coherent system and there is little disagreement over its description among the core MMT economists. Some MMT-adjacent economists (Steve Keen for example, who, in a survey of over 5,000 economists worldwide, was voted by an overwhelming margin as having made the most accurate predictions about the Global Financial Crisis) disagree about certain periphery issues like trade. But he agrees with MMT’s fundamental analysis.
The main criticism I’m seeing these days from professional economists is that MMT is ‘reverse santa clause’. That is, MMT is technically true in its description of the operational realities of our monetary system, but that it’s better that the general public believe federal spending is revenue constrained because they can’t be trusted to understand and manage risks like inflation. I think that’s totally asinine, especially considering the serious harms caused by unemployment, lack of healthcare, and the looming climate crisis.