Well, actually the Fed is responsible for the money supply, and is pretty independent from the rest of the government (as much as it can be these days, anyway).

Well, actually the Fed is responsible for the money supply, and is pretty independent from the rest of the government (as much as it can be these days, anyway). So the claim that the government can just print money to pay for anything they want is technically true, but fails to understand the nuance of the system. Further, there are consequences to injecting large amounts of money. Namely, inflation. The great "mystery" of the past decade is why inflation hasn't manifested alongside the various forms of stimulus from the Fed and Treasury. However, theoretically, and historically, printing money to pay down government debt will result in inflation which can be harmful if done carelessly or out of necessity (eg. being a forced seller). To your last point about forcing rates to zero, the same principle applies. This would happen via market action undertaken by the Fed (who again, is not concerned with government spending, that's not their mandate). Even if the Fed did act in concert with congress in the manner you describe, they would do so by purchasing bonds in the open market. This would again require the injection of more currency into the economy and provide further upward pressure on inflation. I should say that I definitely agree with your points regarding the politics.