There is so much in error in your statement that it would be difficult to unpack short of writing a book. Since an excellent one already exists, I will refer you to "The Deficit Myth" authored by Dr. Stephanie Kelton. However, I will try to hit the high points.
"Printing new money translates to "change the measuring stick."
All federal spending is via "new money". Taxes and borrowing are not funding mechanisms at the federal level, and never really have been. Money must exist in the private sector before it can be collected or borrowed, which means Congress must spend it into existence prior to either.
Collecting or borrowing moves money from the private sector back to its origin in the public sector where it encounters, and is canceled by, the debt that it was created from. Simple spreadsheet accounting used to track money worldwide would tell you that "revenue" cannot survive this encounter to be recycled into spending.
"While it is true that the first to receive new money (banks) do not feel the immediate inflation, by the time money reaches the poor, it is worth less."
Money is not a finite commodity that varies in value according to its availability. Price inflation "can" occur if too much money is thrown at a particular resource that suffers from greater demand than supply, but that isn't the inflation most commonly associated with the money supply. Such inflation is almost always the result of mitigating supply shocks or paying off debt denominated in currencies other than that which the currency issuer controls (ie. Euro or US dollars loaned by the International Monetary Fund).
"While it is true that many mal-investments are made, because of the availability of money, they only survive if more and more money is created."
This is true, but only for banks within the private sector. A currency-issuing government is the price setter for its spending. The Fed creates reserves to enable interbank transfers of credit, but those are balanced by the borrower's contract/equity and will always balance to zero. Such reserves are "obligations" to the lending bank, not assets, and are subject to interest set as the overnight rate.
While this credit-backed money spends just like public money and contributes to GDP, it cannot "net" retire the debt that created the reserves. It also cannot pay federal tax obligations or serve as a "net" store of value because it goes away as the loan principal is paid off. One of the problems with such spending initiatives as student debt forgiveness is the deflationary impact it has via reducing the net money supply in the private sector.
The amount of credit-funded money in our economy is much greater than federal spending in any given year, by as much as eight times. The money created by Congress in the deficit of taxation must serve to retire that debt as it accrues and satisfy the public's desire to net save a store of value from its commerce. A "balanced" budget effectively steals the real resources and labor the government uses by clawing back all payments made to the private sector in taxation.
This can be masked by increasing GDP above the rate required to fund "real" growth and population increases, but doing so creates fragility that rears its head in any downturn in the business cycle. Without automatic stabilizers, unemployment and the safety net, in place, such downturns can starve the economy and disrupt supply chains.
