Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" will cause inflation to rise.

The first thing to remember about any democrat tax and spend bill is that they'll always overestimate the revenue coming in and underestimate the spending going out. The second thing is that when they say deficit reduction what they mean is, we were going to raise the deficit by 2 trillion this year but instead we'll only rise it by 1.9 trillion. See, we saved a hundred billion dollars! And the third thing to remember is that whenever they raise taxes on corporations and businesses it always gets passed on to the customers or the employees in the end. You think the guys at the top are the ones that pay for the tax increase? And the 4th thing is that the democrats always use budgetary gimmicks to make it look like the spending will be paid for. They raise taxes for 10 years but the spending is for 3 years of benefits. When those 3 years are up, they'll try to extend the spending for another 7 years or whatever, which obviously is NOT covered in the current bill. At it's core it is deceitful and dishonest.

What this bill essentially does is redistribute wealth to the climate change alarmist benefactors of the democratic party and from the employees and customers of big businesses and corporations, and it's purely for political purposes. It is a bold-faced lie to say that inflation will be reduced, and in fact probably will be slightly increased because of the new spending that does not increase the production of goods and services. If it passes, this bill is going to raise energy costs for most Americans that already can't afford it. People on the low end of the income ladder won't see jack squat from this bill, but the democrat politicians and their rich donors/supporters will.
 
Quote the JCT saying the Bill is inflationary. Not what someone SAYS about what they said
So you think the Dimtards in Congress are doing to put into their dumbass bill "THIS IS INFLATIONARY"?

What a moron you are. :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:

Looks like everyone who has scored this turd says it will do the opposite of the flowery title of the bill, Stupid.
 
If they are just shifting money they wouldn’t need the $433 BILLION, nor would they need to raise taxes on working folks to pay for the spending, Simp.

You aren’t very smart, in fact you are a colossal dumbass.
Collecting taxes doesn’t create money you moron - it pulls it from tax evaders who were spending it and moves to the government spending it. What are you trying to peddle here? There is no new money created. It is shifting from one purpose to another. If you’re a tax evader then you are fucked but it is not new spending.
 
Collecting taxes doesn’t create money you moron - it pulls it from tax evaders who were spending it and moves to the government spending it. What are you trying to peddle here? There is no new money created. It is shifting from one purpose to another. If you’re a tax evader then you are fucked but it is not new spending.
Hey Simp, here are your exact words:

Government spending goes DOWN from the bill.

Explain to the class how Government spending goes down with the passage of a $433 BILLION spending bill.
 
A7FA132F-DDDC-41EE-942F-7DD22394CAF9.jpeg
 
Breaking: Democrats announce they will NOT be denied their PORK and TAX INCREASES. Vow to cram through $1.3 trillion worth without a single GOP vote. Dems get BITCH SLAPPED when an independent non-partisan group study the bill and determine Dems are LYING about it.
 
$738B-$433B is positive $300B+. I can do math can you? That pays done the debt and reduces money in the market. Get it now?
Let me see if I can break this down in terms you can understand:

Let's say you are a man bun sportin', skinny jeans wearing Cuck living in Seattle and spend $200 per month on Lattes at Starbucks. All the sudden you start spending $433 per month on lattes at Starbucks while at the same time sucking off 4 times the number of guys in the back alleys of Seattle and bringing in $500 more per month.

Are you spending more or less on Lattes at Starbucks, Cuck?
 
$738B-$433B is positive $300B+. I can do math can you? That pays down the debt and reduces money in the market. Get it now?
Question for you (yes, an actual question):
How does 'prescription drug pricing reform' RAISE $288B in revenue?
 
Let me see if I can break this down in terms you can understand:

Let's say you are a man bun sportin', skinny jeans wearing Cuck living in Seattle and spend $200 per month on Lattes at Starbucks. All the sudden you start spending $433 per month on lattes at Starbucks while at the same time sucking off 4 times the number of guys in the back alleys of Seattle and bringing in $500 more per month.

Are you spending more or less on Lattes at Starbucks, Cuck?
Restate that in normal terms and I’ll answer. Otherwise I’ll just type you’re a fuckface moron.
 
Collecting taxes doesn’t create money you moron - it pulls it from tax evaders who were spending it and moves to the government spending it. What are you trying to peddle here? There is no new money created. It is shifting from one purpose to another. If you’re a tax evader then you are fucked but it is not new spending.
Real growth is reducing in our dying nation. Has been for decades. All projected revenue are lies.
 
Sorry, savings is NOT 'revenue raised' which is what your chart purports it to be.
You can simply move the $288B below the line as a negative number and call it a savings of expenses if you want. Same result and you’ll be happier with the terminology.
 
You can simply move the $288B below the line as a negative number and call it a savings of expenses if you want. Same result and you’ll be happier with the terminology.
So why isn't it listed like that (which any 1st year Accounting student would wonder)?
 

Forum List

Back
Top