Two Things That Federal Government Must Do To Help Americans During Inflation:

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Was it a credited Law school? Sounds like it wasn't.

It was (is) a fully accredited law school. Passed the bar exam on the first try, too.

You?

 

[SkyChief]

It was (is) a fully accredited law school. Passed the bar exam on the first try, too.

You?

I never passed the Bar Exam.

But I fully understand the meaning of the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, whereas you do not.

Ironic, don't you think?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I never passed the Bar Exam.

But I fully understand the meaning of the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, whereas you do not.

Ironic, don't you think?

Did you even go to law school? Have you ever even cracked a textbook on Constitutional Law? Or are you just picking up your misconceptions from Libertarian websites?

Look, Chief, there is a time to back away from losing arguments, and maybe even learn something new in the process. You are a few pages past that point, at least.

 

[SkyChief]

Did you even go to law school? Have you ever even cracked a textbook on Constitutional Law? Or are you just picking up your misconceptions from Libertarian websites?

Ad Hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I very surprised that someone with a (claimed) college degree would stoop to this, but you did, so thanks.

Look, Chief, there is a time to back away from losing arguments, and maybe even learn something new in the process. You are a few pages past that point, at least.

I challenged you to produce something regarding deficit spending in the constitution.

Naturally you failed, because there is none. The reason there is no mention of deficit spending in the Constitution is because the Founding Fathers had never intended for government to engage in deficit spending. They never intended for government to borrow money and redistribute to the citizens.

And that's the one of the fundamental core principles of MMT - borrowing of money because government cannot possibly default on any loans because they always have the power to print and borrow even more. MMT is a reckless and irresponsible ideology, IMO.

You lost the argument, bud.

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority
of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits
from the use of other people's money" - Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Ad Hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I very surprised that someone with a (claimed) college degree would stoop to this, but you did, so thanks.

You didn't even get ad hominem fallacy correct. I didn't attack your character, I attacked your interpretation of the Constitution. And pointing out that your interpretation isn't taken seriously in any law school I've ever heard of is completely relevant to that.

On the other hand, you insinuating that I lied about my law degree is an ad hominem attack.

I challenged you to produce something regarding deficit spending in the constitution.

And I did that already.

Naturally you failed, because there is none. The reason there is no mention of deficit spending in the Constitution is because the Founding Fathers had never intended for government to engage in deficit spending. They never intended for government to borrow money and redistribute to the citizens.

And that's the one of the fundamental core principles of MMT - borrowing of money because government cannot possibly default on any loans because they always have the power to print and borrow even more. MMT is a reckless and irresponsible ideology, IMO.

You lost the argument, bud.

Only in your misguided head.

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority
of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits
from the use of other people's money" - Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

And Lindbergh also didn't know what he was talking about. The Fed doesn't exist to make a profit; all income over and above costs reverts back to the Treasury.

 

[SkyChief]

You didn't even get ad hominem fallacy correct. I didn't attack your character, I attacked your interpretation of the Constitution. And pointing out that your interpretation isn't taken seriously in any law school I've ever heard of is completely relevant to that.

On the other hand, you insinuating that I lied about my law degree is an ad hominem attack.

Wrong again. You questioned where I got my information, and alluded to the fact that I am libertarian. You questioned my law degree. Those were directed at ME - - NOT my position that MMT is fundamentally flawed, and deficit spending is NOT a proper function of government.

That's what ad hominem means. I even provided the definition of ad hominem:

"a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

You've really painted yourself in a corner, bud.

 

[Superfly]

Your OP is vapid and silly. I'm humoring you. Carry on.

Careful. He won't respond.

*chuckling*

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Wrong again. You questioned where I got my information, and alluded to the fact that I am libertarian. You questioned my law degree. Those were directed at ME - - NOT my position that MMT is fundamentally flawed, and deficit spending is NOT a proper function of government.

It's completely legitimate to question your sources. There are good sources of information, and there are bad sources of information. The fact that you are spouting bad information leads anyone to question your sources.

You espouse Libertarian views. You call yourself a Libertarian in your profile. And Libertarians, by all accounts, are outside the mainstream of both political and economic thought. You guys also have a penchant for interpreting the Constitution in ways that are unsupported by the legal community.

And I questioned your law degree because it's obvious that you never attended law school. Nobody that had would ever make the arguments you make. So when you hold yourself out as an authority on Constitutional Law, that matters. Just reading the Constitution does not make you a Constitutional authority. And as for simple literal interpretations of the Constitution, there are whole wings in law libraries devoted to real judicial interpretations of that small document. You aren't just arguing with me, you are arguing against 250 years of Supreme Court decisions. So you had better bring better sources when you argue.

That's what ad hominem means. I even provided the definition of ad hominem:

"a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

You've really painted yourself in a corner, bud.

Nope. I attacked the substance of your argument, and you took it personally. That's on you. Pointing out that Libertarians often make poor arguments that fall far outside of mainstream thought was just there to poop on your sources of information. (If there are any.)

 

[SkyChief]

It's completely legitimate to question your sources. There are good sources of information, and there are bad sources of information. The fact that you are spouting bad information leads anyone to question your sources.

You espouse Libertarian views. You call yourself a Libertarian in your profile.

Wow. Wrong AGAIN. I never called myself a libertarian. My profile says that I lean libertarian. I could be a flaming Marxist for all you know.

The point is, your attacks are at ME - - NOT my position.

And Libertarians, by all accounts, are outside the mainstream of both political and economic thought. You guys also have a penchant for interpreting the Constitution in ways that are unsupported by the legal community.

Forget about libertarians. Its not germane to the topic.

And I questioned your law degree because it's obvious that you never attended law school. Nobody that had would ever make the arguments you make.

I never claimed that I went to law school, genius. I said that I never passed the Bar Exam.

So when you hold yourself out as an authority on Constitutional Law, that matters.

BS. I never claimed to be an authority on Constitutional Law. I claimed that I understand the meaning of the phrase "General welfare" whereas you do not. And clearly you don't. It doesn't matter how many years you spent studying Constitutional Law - you still misinterpret the meaning of the phrase General Welfare with regards to article 1 section 8.

. . . Nope. I attacked the substance of your argument, and you took it personally. That's on you. Pointing out that Libertarians often make poor arguments that fall far outside of mainstream thought was just there to poop on your sources of information. (If there are any.)

You have no valid argument, only disparaging comments about libertarians.

"I have reserved for you a copy of the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on Manufactures for which I hoped to have found before this a private conveyance, it being rather bulky for the mail. Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper which broaches a new constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public, I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government, as contrary to the true & fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.” - James Madison

It is plain to me that Madison is concerned that Article 1 Section 8 implies that government can do whatever the hell it wants. But Madison makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that this not the case.

 

[rahl]

1. Reduce Borrowing/Spending would be nice, but it'll never happen. What would also be good is no NEW borrowing/spending, but that won't happen either. Congress needs to keep spending to pay off their donors and lobbyists, no matter how much it ****s over American citizens. And to keep that spending going, they MUST borrow.

2. Since the borrowing/spending won't stop, lowering income taxes would just compound the problem because it would force more borrowing.

You were doing ok up to this point.

But neither of these will reduce inflation because the current inflation isn't consumer driven. It's producer driven. It's simply costing producers at all levels more and more to provide products to the consumers. They MUST raise their prices.

So...what is causing the increase in costs to the producers? Increased cost of energy. And what is responsible for the increased cost of energy? The Biden pukes and their war on the energy industry.

The solution? One of two things must happen:

1. The Biden pukes must reverse everything they've done to attack the energy industry.

2. The voters must remove the Biden pukes from DC.

I only see #2 as possibly happening. If it doesn't, we will see ever-increasing inflation until it does.

Then you went off the rails into batshit crazy and laughably incorrect.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I correctly outlined MMT. There is more to it, of course, but basically MMT is as I described.

"In essence, governments like the US, Japan, the UK, and Canada that use fiat currencies are not constrained by their tax revenues when it comes to government spending and can perpetually run a budget deficit. This is due to the fact that the central banks in these counties have a Monopoly on the supply of money," Ryan Cullen, CEO/ Cullen Investment Group.

(I capitalized the word Monopoly in a nod to the board game. I thought you might find this amusing)

Not at all, so far you have been entirely and consistently wrong about MMT.

And it the quote does not even apply the way you think it does, no wonder we are all laughing at you for thinking MMT is based on the game Monopoly.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Wow. Wrong AGAIN. I never called myself a libertarian. My profile says that I lean libertarian. I could be a flaming Marxist for all you know.

The point is, your attacks are at ME - - NOT my position.

Forget about libertarians. Its not germane to the topic.

Quit telling everyone else what is and is not germane to the topic, and we'll note how often you have gone after the credentials and knowledge of others. You are in zero position to claim authority or exclusive right to question others then run off and hide behind some rule you do not get to enforce.

That is called being hypocritical, added your clear lack of knowledge of MMT or even basic economics.

I never claimed that I went to law school, genius. I said that I never passed the Bar Exam.

BS. I never claimed to be an authority on Constitutional Law. I claimed that I understand the meaning of the phrase "General welfare" whereas you do not. And clearly you don't. It doesn't matter how many years you spent studying Constitutional Law - you still misinterpret the meaning of the phrase General Welfare with regards to article 1 section 8.

You have no valid argument, only disparaging comments about libertarians.

Irony, you talking about disparaging comments. See above.

"I have reserved for you a copy of the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on Manufactures for which I hoped to have found before this a private conveyance, it being rather bulky for the mail. Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper which broaches a new constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public, I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government, as contrary to the true & fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.” - James Madison

It is plain to me that Madison is concerned that Article 1 Section 8 implies that government can do whatever the hell it wants. But Madison makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that this not the case.

Yet here we are, with plenty of constitutional challenge on what Congress does.

Reality seems to be more impacting that one comment by James Madison who may or may not have been referencing all sorts of things.

 

[American]

IKR? They should just ask you.

Wow two worthless post, can you make a third. Of course you can.

 

[reflechissez]

Wow two worthless post, can you make a third. Of course you can.

Aside from the fact that I wasn't talking to you, consider focusing on your dumb. failed uninteresting threads. That should keep you busy.

 

[American]

Aside from the fact that I wasn't talking to you, consider focusing on your dumb. failed uninteresting threads. That should keep you busy.

Looks like I hurt your feewings. Sorry.

 

[reflechissez]

Looks like I hurt your feewings. Sorry.

sure

 

[The Work Outing]

1) Reduce Borrowing/Spending, and
2) (substantially) Lower Income Taxes

As everyone most people know, 3% Wage increases cannot possibly keep up with 8.6% inflation. American's discretionary income is hemorrhaging.

Inflation is costing the average American thousands of dollars/year. The estimates vary somewhat, but the consensus is the number is between $3500 and $5000/yr.

Congress needs to pass serious spending limit bills, and pass Income Tax cuts to offset American's (net) income losses due to inflation.

Fine.
And exactly what areas are you going to cut spending?
And exactly how much income tax reduction are you talking about?

Making blanket statements is easy.
Detailing them is another matter.

 

[FurriesRock]

Government's job is NOT "to give money to people on the lower end".

This redistribution of wealth is a fairly common misconception about the proper function of government, and this is why we are in the (spending deficit) mess we are in today.

That depends on how we define government's role.

If government's role is just to provide for our national security and enforce laws, then no, it's not the government's job.

However, if we define government's role to ensure the prosperity and to help ensure the best outcomes for all citizens, then it does become the government's job.

 

[SkyChief]

That depends on how we define government's role.

It really doesn't. Government's role is already well defined.

If government's role is just to provide for our national security and enforce laws, then no, it's not the government's job.

However, if we define government's role to ensure the prosperity and to help ensure the best outcomes for all citizens, then it does become the government's job.

The U.S. Constitution is quite clear on the scope, roles and functions of government.

Socialist Democrats often argue that the General Welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives government the green light to redistribute wealth.

IT DOES NOT.

The general Welfare clause states that any service(s) to residents of the states must benefit ALL residents of the states, not separate interest groups. So this means that if government is going to redistribute wealth to poor poeple, it must also redistribute wealth to the middle class and the wealthy. Which of course would be absurd.

This is why the government is overstepping its role with borrowing and spending and redistributing. It is overreach and misuse of government power and it needs to be reined in.

 

[FurriesRock]

It really doesn't. Government's role is already well defined.


The U.S. Constitution is quite clear on the scope, roles and functions of government.

Socialist Democrats often argue that the General Welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives government the green light to redistribute wealth.

IT DOES NOT.

The general Welfare clause states that any service(s) to residents of the states must benefit ALL residents of the states, not separate interest groups. So this means that if government is going to redistribute wealth to poor poeple, it must also redistribute wealth to the middle class and the wealthy. Which of course would be absurd.

This is why the government is overstepping its role with borrowing and spending and redistributing. It is overreach and misuse of government power and it needs to be reined in.

The constitution is not the end all be all.

It's not sacred.

We can literally change the constitution, or simply get rid of it and start over.

The constitution was not handed down by God as literal rules we have to follow and ideologies to believe in for all time.

 

[SkyChief]

The constitution is not the end all be all.

Yes it is.

It's not sacred.

Legally speaking, it IS sacred

We can literally change the constitution, or simply get rid of it and start over.

The constitution was not handed down by God as literal rules we have to follow and ideologies to believe in for all time.

Yes, the Constitution can be changed, and it can be abolished entirely.

But as it sits right now, it is the Law, and Court rulings should reflect that. Earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that restores rights to Americans based on two constitutional amendments.

The constitution is better than many people realize. . . . Not perfect, but it's our only guarantee of Rights to Americans.

 

[FurriesRock]

The constitution is not the end all be all.

It's not sacred.

We can literally change the constitution, or simply get rid of it and start over.

The constitution was not handed down by God as literal rules we have to follow and ideologies to believe in for all time.

Yes it is.

Legally speaking, it IS sacred

Yes, the Constitution can be changed, and it can be abolished entirely.

But as it sits right now, it is the Law, and Court rulings should reflect that.

Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into the whole civic religion of worshipping the sacred toilet paper. I'm not really a dogma type of person.

 

[Mina]

1) Reduce Borrowing/Spending, and
2) (substantially) Lower Income Taxes

As everyone most people know, 3% Wage increases cannot possibly keep up with 8.6% inflation. American's discretionary income is hemorrhaging.

Inflation is costing the average American thousands of dollars/year. The estimates vary somewhat, but the consensus is the number is between $3500 and $5000/yr.

Congress needs to pass serious spending limit bills, and pass Income Tax cuts to offset American's (net) income losses due to inflation.

Reducing borrowing and spending would make things harder on people coping with inflation, by taking away government benefits, and thereby forcing people onto the private sector for similar services, at a time when such services are rising rapidly in cost.

As for income taxes, it probably depend on the form that took. Any kind of flat-rate income tax reduction would give the vast majority of its benefit to the wealthy. The wealthy aren't exactly known for bargain-hunting, so you'd basically be flooding the market with a lot of money in the hands of people who are price insensitive, thereby driving up costs. For example, if a lower income tax let more millionaires buy up second homes, that would drive up housing costs for others.

We might actually go the other way: a targeted upper-class tax hike, to soak up a lot of excess money that would otherwise be in price-insensitive hands. With less of that loosely-spent money sloshing around in the economy, prices should fall. Meanwhile, that money could be spent on hiking certain forms of government spending, such as subsidized childcare, to help people who are struggling to deal with price shocks.

So, your ideas are good, so long as we do the exact opposite.

 

[The Work Outing]

The federal government should make sure there are plenty of beds/food in shelters around the country for ALL those who need it.
And perhaps give additional, medical assistance to the poor/lower middle classes (if they truly need it).

But that is IT.

The government (Fed and fed gov't.) threw over $8 trillion extra dollars at the economy over 2020 and 2021.
How the 'f' could you not see inflation coming, once the lockdowns ended?
Plus, inflation had been building since early 2021.

United States Inflation Rate

Inflation Rate in the United States increased to 2.90 percent in August from 2.70 percent in July of 2025. This page provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

tradingeconomics.com

Or did you just choose to ignore the OBVIOUS signs and assume it was 'temporary'?
Then, it is YOUR fault for not being better prepared and/or for believing the ignorant politicians/MSM who said 'it will pass'.

When will the ignorant masses learn to NEVER listen to the opinions of politicians, economists or the MSM about ANYTHING?

Assuming you have a safe, solid place to live (no matter how small - rent or own), plenty to eat, decent health insurance and a solid internet connection?
If you have all that?
I have NO pity for you if inflation caught you off guard.
it's your own bloody fault for not seeing the obvious signs.

Just suck it up and ride it out.

And stop whining and looking to others to fix the problem that you should have seen coming.

 

[fmw]

Failed economics?
Lowering taxes would add to inflation.

Only because reduced revenue doesn't keep federal government from spending whatever it wants to spend.