your take essentially boils down to "the government can do whatever it wants, can distribute wealth however it wants, can make as much debt as it wants to, and can raise as many taxes as it wants to"

For an entity which exclusively holds the monopoly ability to issue the currency its budgets are denominated in, they don’t engage with money in the same way a currency user must, it’s almost exactly inverted. Tax payments they receive don’t pay for anything, they’re mostly an inflation control mechanism.

Burdening themselves with ‘debt’ in their currency is an unnecessary complication, and every ‘payment’ they receive in that same currency is obliterated the moment the accounting record is reconciled.

i believe: government needs to intervene as much as necessary but as little as possible.

which means more wealth redistribution from rich to poor today because that's necessary, but we should eventually get to a state again where that redistribution is limited in the future.

It’s cute that the notion that the involvement of the state in an economy is framed as an aberration, and a problem to be resolved. A national economy originates from the state as its primary tool of control and coercion. Limiting its role in its function is a fascinating display of cognitive gymnastics.

I agree that pursuing a state of equilibrium where wealth redistribution can be limited is worthy, but framing it as a return to something previously recorded is, at best, laughable.