However, the inflation rate will probably drop over the next few months as the Federal Reserve raises its policy rates to make it expensive to borrow money.
This falsehood is quite popular because it gives massive raises to the wealthy in the form of dividends without requiring investment risks while also making it harder for the mom-and-pop businesses to compete. What part of "making it more expensive" doesn't equate to higher inflation in your mind?
Inflation is always due to a supply problem in a fiat currency economy. Governments increase the money supply via safety nets to allow vulnerable people to purchase more expensive necessities and there is always a gaggle of conservatives ready with their faux econ to oppose that and blame it for the inflation. Raising interest rates further aggravates such problems and causes demand to be reduced as well as lenders to tighten up, but the net effect of money creation is only different by who benefits.
The Federal Government’s debt accrued due to COVID-19 spending; Stimulus, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, & Social Security spending will haunt the United States for the foreseeable future.
We should be collecting more taxation from the wealthy, but that isn't relevant to any future spending by the currency-issuing government. There is no "infinite+1" that would better enable the currency issuer that has an infinite number of dollars available.
Although the government sent $804 billion directly to low- and middle-income families via three rounds of covid-19 stimulus payments, it spent all of its tax revenue on social welfare programs during the pandemic.
Tax "revenue" is an oxymoron widely used to delude regular morons. Money is created when the currency-issuing (federal) government spends and is "deleted" when it collects its currency back as tax payments and applies it to the "accounting entity" called debt.
I know of no accounting system that would allow "revenue" to be doubled to balance debt and remain intact to "fund" spending. It can always afford anything available, or potentially available, and denominated in dollars it creates on-demand.
The primary weakness in your continued dribble surrounding the debt is the fact that it represents our nation's "net" money supply from past payments made by the federal government to those providing resources and labor in the private sector. A "balanced budget" steals both and provides nothing to net retire private bank debt or be net saved as a reward for our commerce and thrift.
Thus, Uncle Sam had to borrow money to finance its armed forces, run its bloated government, and service the interest on the national debt.
The borrowing increased the national debt by more than $6 trillion. Debt has put the United States on a path to financial downfall and is the nation’s real top economic crisis.
The monopoly issuer of a sovereign fiat currency never "borrows" its unit of account to "fund" its spending. Treasury bonds only serve to allow it to control basic interest rates and deplete excess reserves from the banking system. We should consider doing away with bonds entirely and simply setting interest permanently to zero, or close to it, and letting reserves accumulate in the system, or properly utilizing the power to tax those who have extreme reserve excesses.
Your continued conflation of currency "users" with the currency "issuer" and how they relate to that currency is dishonest and you should seriously think about not doing so. Just because it fits the common narrative and has enormous propaganda value doesn't absolve you from any moral imperative to be truthful.
Throwing around some big scary numbers and misrepresenting their meaning has been relatively effective in maintaining the status quo of capital's dominance, but people are now being materially harmed by that status quo. It is going to become harder to sell your schtick of austerity as people watch their economic security dwindle and their government becomes unresponsive to them.
Your complete inability to accept simple facts available to anyone who can read a Fed spreadsheet tells me that it would be useless to counter anything you might posit concerning Social Security, Medicare, etc. Suffice it to say that your position against any spending for anyone but the wealthy is hardly new, as it has been the message forwarded by sycophants of capital since the New Deal and the institution of those programs.
How dem boots taste??
