view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Biden did continue signing massive spending bills well after it was clearly having issues. My state had so much covid money left over they were funding all sorts of random shit just to spend it.
Your assertion is that things like the infrastructure act and CHIPS act and etc were what drove inflation (instead of driving wage growth which is what most people are saying they did)?
I'm not sure what you're saying here; are those the bills you mean? Those are the big ones I'm aware of, and he funded them by raising corporate taxes; it wasn't just inflationary spending.
My assertion is that after approximately 2 trillion in covid funding by Trump, the additional 3 trillion from Biden is a major contributing factor to the inflation that was observed. The follow up of an additional approximately 1.5 trillion from the bills you listed doesn't help either though.
Do you think that Biden should have abruptly stopped Covid aid instead, as soon as he got into office?
Fascinating
The assertion of almost everything I've read on any level about it was that they did help, since as I mentioned they were funded by increasing tax on wealthy corporations, so there's no reason to think they would have any effect at all on inflation, i.e. their main impact was to increase wages vs inflation.
What did you read / what did you listen to that gave you the impression that they didn't help, or that they had an impact on inflation?
Those bills already spent the money though, the inflation happened. The paying for it part is based on a decade of tax revenue that hasn't happened yet. If even 10% of that "responsible" spending has come back as tax revenue I would be surprised.