Why would Biden's stimulus cause inflation, but not Trump's?

Here are the deficit numbers:
Trump:
-Tax cuts: $1.5 trillion over 10 years (predicted, probably will be much higher due to covid recession)
-Cares act: $2.2 trillion

Biden:
-America rescue plan: $1.9 trillion

So, it seems to be common "knowledge" in Trump supporter circles that Biden is causing inflation by printing money. Now, the question is: Why does Biden's money printing cause inflation, but Trump's does not, even though Trump's stimulus exceeded Biden's in total amount and duration?

I am not saying that the covid stimulus bills didn't contribute to inflation, they probably did. I, personally, got stimulus checks for my family which I didn't need. Some of that money was spent back into the economy, therefore raising prices at a time when the supply of goods plummeted due to supply chain issues.

So, maybe Trump supporters can clarify this:
1) Do Biden and Trump share the blame for inflation?
2) What was the effect of the tax cuts on the national credit card on inflation? Didn't they raise inflation because there was more money around chasing the same amount of goods?
3) Do policies have immediate effects on inflation, or are the effects delayed?
4) Would we have no inflation if Trump was still in office? If so, how would he prevented inflation?

I am interested to get some discussion on these macroeconomic issues, rather than the typical (to paraphrase) "Biden is the devil because he makes the stuff I buy more expensive" type of kneejerk analysis.

 

I would be surprised if you had a logical response from the MAGA's of this forum.

The real answer is that it's none of their fault.

Inflation is worldwide and the difficulties of supply and the slowness of the production chain affects all the countries of the world.

Since the pandemic has slowed down, domestic consumption has exploded, which puts a lot of pressure on the supplier countries, which have not revived their economies at the same pace as the US.

If Trump were still POTUS, his solution would probably be to impose even more tariffs at the borders which would have the effect of increasing inflation even more.

 

We have exactly the same issues in Australia at the moment.

Supply chain disruption, labour shortages and inflation.

 

Because of far right partisan radicalization and blame projection? Do I win anything?

 

Nope. According to @pitbull , the tax cuts were pathetic and small compared to every other president, so that number can't possibly be that high. So you and he have to get together and hash it out.

Right, the same act the Corona-virus nutters insisted on to allow for silly lockdowns. Yep, that was a waste of money for corporate welfare.

$3.7 trillion last I saw. But Biden says $3.7 trillion = $0. So, I guess you're thinking it's somewhere in between?

Not a Trump supporter as I don't suffer from TDS, but hey I'll answer your questions.

Sure do. Trump wasted money building up the military and failed to rein in the bloated federal bureaucracy. Biden wants to spend money like it's worthless.

You misunderstand what inflation actually is. Inflation is not necessarily higher prices. Inflation is increasing the amount of money. Cutting taxes and reducing spending would not lead to inflation because the money supply would remain the same.

However, Trump cut taxes and printed money instead of reducing spending. This is what the past presidents after Clinton did. In many, many ways, I wish Gore had won.

There are ways to alleviate the effects of inflation like higher prices and scarcity by expanding the economy or convincing people to take money out of the economy.

The effects can be immediate or delayed. Usually, the effects are rather immediate as one can see in Venezuela.

I think inflation would still be a problem. The only difference is that the problem might not be made even worse with the printing of even more money. If you have an inflation problem, throwing gas on the fire won't help.

 

To be completely fair, the only reason why the tax cuts would not cause inflation is that they benefited only the rich. Not the poor, or the middle class... just the very rich. The poor and middle class ended up paying for them which would tend to cause deflation and a wider income gap.

I say again what I said a long tome ago: inflation is GOOD for the poor and the middle class. What is happening today is that Biden gave the workers the necessary weapons for them to fight for fair wages. This inflates prices, but it also give workers the opportunity to seek and choose the jobs that pay them fairly.

 

OMG really? Is your Secretary of Transportation on paternity leave as well?????

 

i'm surprised that you don't know this, qn.

trump's divinely anointed spending was , of course, at the discretionary authority of trump's trusted son in law, and can never be audited, so it really does not count.

biden's socialist rescue plan is little more than communist keynesian "stimulus" which never leads to anything except the sacrifice of more baaabies to satan and, of course, inflation.

 

Seems far right logical!!!

 

Funny you bring that up
Biden’s employees can just take long leaves and they don’t bother having a back up plan?
Are you really justifying it based on one person’s paternity leave?
Omg! Ive seen it all now

 

Since the so-called Trump tax cuts produced more tax revenue they can't be considered inflationary at all. Trump's Cares acts spending would be inflationary as Biden's spending plan/hopes are, the difference being Trump's was 100% necessary while Biden's is 85% boondoggle.

 

And how, exactly, is it you know that they don't bother having back up plans?

 

Please provide examples and links that confirm this (in bold)? Inflation is a demand and supply variable.

 

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year

Fiscal Year -- Revenue

FY 2021 -- $3.86 (estimated) +0.15

FY 2020 -- $3.71 trillion (estimated) +0.25

FY 2019 -- $3.46 trillion +0.13

FY 2018 -- $3.33 trillion +0.01

FY 2017 -- $3.32 trillion +0.05

FY 2016 -- $3.27 trillion +0.02

 

If Trump's tax cuts produced more revenue, then why did the GOP have to push them through using reconciliation, with even the GOP predicting that they would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit in 10 years (a VERY rosy prediction)? Are you saying the GOP got it wrong and the tax cuts are not adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit? Please clarify.

As to your second point: Does only "un-necessary" deficit spending cause inflation, and "necessary" deficit spending does not? What's the macro-economic basis for this assertion?

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...uring-buttigieg-paternity-leave-cargo-crisis/
boom!

 

These stats don't prove your assertion at all. There is no direct linkage. The two things can be independent of each other and even unrelated. Please provide the specific links that prove what you stated or state that it's an opinion?

 

Boom? Really?
From the article:
“There are a range of officials leading different components of the department of transpiration including the chief of staff, the deputy secretary of transportation, a range of officials who keep that place humming, functioning every day,”

Do you think that there needed to be more than the deputy secretary of the department? Add in the chief of staff and a range of officials, and I think its well covered. What, exactly, do you think the role of Deputy Secretary is? Are they not the automatic replacement for the Secretary?

 

tax revenue, as in every other case of "tax cuts paying for themselves," result from the massive keynesian stimulus that always accompanies repub tax cuts (under the "two santa claus" strategy.) ''

Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia

The Two Santa Claus Theory[edit]
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[15][16] The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democrats who promise programs to help the disadvantaged. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republicans must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but offering the option of cutting taxes.[citation needed]

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector."[16] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."[17]

The Two Santa Claus Theory | New World Economics

 

I accept accounting reports magnitudes more readily than predictions, especially predictions from politicians. See post # 14. (As Galbraith quipped the best benefit of economic forecasting is it make astrology look good.)

I never asserted that. In fact, if you would bother to actually read and comprehend my post, I said adding necessary money into the economy is just as inflationary as un-necessary additions.

 

If any tax cuts produce more government revenue they are not inflationary. It ain't rocket science. The proof is left to the student.

 

The supply ships are still stuck
Jenna generic bs answer is the equivalent of nothing
But don’t worry. Pete’s adopted children won’t suffer any supply shortages

 

OK, so you are unable to prove what is now an assertion. Makes the second and third sentences moot. Thanks.

 

LOL! I have my own ideas as to what causes inflation. However, I'd rather pose the questions to be answered by Trump voters, so they can either expose their own lack of understanding of economics. Somehow, GOP voters always think that understanding the law of supply and demand makes them experts in economics. Based on this rudimentary knowledge, they tend to keep voting for GOP voodoo economic policies.

 

I agree with this, but it is off the point. Tax cuts most often produce greater federal revenue and by themselves are not inflationary. If the government puts more money into the economy, with or without tax cuts, that is inflationary. That is why Reagan had a concern that his tax cuts should accompany reduced spending which Tip O Neill promised but reneged on. JFK, AFAIK the first, last and only Democrat president that pushed for tax cuts, did not accompany his tax cuts for a call for reduced spending.

The Santa Claus metaphor (which I have not heard before -- thanks) makes it helpful to understand but is not entirely accurate (as are metaphors in general). Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money; this is not being Santa Claus. Adding money into the pockets of people is being Santa Claus