"Bidenflation"

archives said:
If this inflation is world wide, not unique to the US, how is it “Bidenflation.?”

Again, simply economics, production fell off last year with Covid, supply fell, and now with the easing of the pandemic demand has returned, called demand push inflation. At higher demand, prices will rise, as gradually supply will pursuing the increase profits, eventually, it will hit an equilibrium price. Nothing complicated here
Click to expand...
The US has an impact on the world wide cost of energy. The World lives on energy.
 
3deb0d7a-e443-4a3a-a7fe-70ade30b62d2-jpeg.842675
 
dukkha said:
Biden's apologists try to downplay inflation worries by noting that they're largely confined to specific goods such as used cars. But the latest report shows inflation spreading to every sector of the economy, particularly where inflation can harm people of low income. Gasoline, for example, is up 42% from last year. Bacon, beef, pork, and eggs are all up by double digits. Children’s shows are up 12%; electricity 5%; rents 2.9%.

Inflation is outpacing hourly wage gains, which have risen 4.6% compared to inflation of 5.4%, which means real paychecks are falling, not rising, under Biden.

Maybe this is why voters tell pollsters they don't support making Biden’s cash giveaways to parents permanent. Voters are smarter than Democrats think. They know that despite what Democrats say, free money is not really free.

Even the Biden administration is forced occasionally to admit this. On a conference call with reporters about the nation’s supply chain crisis, Biden officials acknowledged that March's $1.9 trillion spending bill drove up prices and made matters worse.

But despite this admission, congressional Democrats are determined to pour $3.5 trillion worth of fiscal gasoline onto the inflation fire. The Biden administration even claimed in a report earlier this year that the best way to fight inflation was for the federal government to spend more money!

The White House Council of Economic Advisers report, titled “The Cost of Living in America: Helping Families Move Ahead,” claimed that the cost of living would fall because Washington would be doling out daycare subsidies. The thinking is that families would be better off despite inflation in other economic sectors.

This is innumerate. Inflation rises when more money chases fewer goods. With a supply chain crisis and COVID-related business restrictions, a sudden cash giveaway might be calculated to accelerate inflation.

Biden is making the same mistake about the $1.9 trillion. The supply of daycare cannot appear magically overnight to meet all the demand Biden’s spending will create. The daycare sector is highly regulated, and Biden is added yet more regulatory hurdles, so it will become harder to expand supply. By making more parents seek limited daycare slots, Biden’s subsidies will push their price up faster than inflation in the wider economy.

Instead of spending trillions more on highly regulated industries such as daycare, healthcare, and education, Biden would serve families better by removing regulatory barriers that make it so hard to increase capacity in these sectors.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-pour-fiscal-accelerant-on-the-inflation-fire
Click to expand...

Well, for the Democrats it creates a dilemma...

They have very little they can do outside buy votes by increased spending. They aren't about to legislate reductions in government. They know shoving something like a new version of Obamacare or the like down the public's throat would just increase the likelihood of losing not just in 2022, but 2024 and beyond. So, they're left with spending more on small stuff they think nobody will notice.

Their only debating point is what the final price tag will be and how much unfunded mandate stuff they can toss in and hope nobody is looking at. That's why the price tag--at least on paper--is down to $2 trillion now. They've stuffed a bunch of short-term funded items into the bill to reduce the costs by accounting tricks when they know damn well that once established, these items will not go away. Funding them after the first few years is left up to future legislatures. So, the "no cost" $2 trillion bill is more like a several trillion deficit down the road bill.

With something like daycare (all day pre-K and kindergarten) the intent is for a government takeover. More regulations drive the small fry and home daycare operators out of business eventually. That leaves only big corporate or government operators. In the long run, it means your children are forced into public daycare unless you can afford one of the large private operators or few small but expensive ones still in the market.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, for the Democrats it creates a dilemma...

They have very little they can do outside buy votes by increased spending. They aren't about to legislate reductions in government. They know shoving something like a new version of Obamacare or the like down the public's throat would just increase the likelihood of losing not just in 2022, but 2024 and beyond. So, they're left with spending more on small stuff they think nobody will notice.

Their only debating point is what the final price tag will be and how much unfunded mandate stuff they can toss in and hope nobody is looking at. That's why the price tag--at least on paper--is down to $2 trillion now. They've stuffed a bunch of short-term funded items into the bill to reduce the costs by accounting tricks when they know damn well that once established, these items will not go away. Funding them after the first few years is left up to future legislatures. So, the "no cost" $2 trillion bill is more like a several trillion deficit down the road bill.

With something like daycare (all day pre-K and kindergarten) the intent is for a government takeover. More regulations drive the small fry and home daycare operators out of business eventually. That leaves only big corporate or government operators. In the long run, it means your children are forced into public daycare unless you can afford one of the large private operators or few small but expensive ones still in the market.
Click to expand...

How is it any more “increasing spending” than the money the Gov’t will have to extend to pay the increasing debt caused by massive tax cuts that largely benefit only a few? Keep in mind the last Administration not only passed the mentioned tax cut but also increased spending at the same time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top