Now, you can fight off the short term effects of recession, and it's typically popular politically. But there's some real ramifications. Here's how it probably goes:
Causing inflation is extremely likely to weaken the dollar, which hits first and foremost the people making the lowest real wages. The people making the lowest real wages have little power to strike or collectively bargain that organized or semi-skilled labor has, little to no control over pricing like professionals have, and no places to invest money in real assets to shelter money from inflation. The poor get screwed the hardest in this whole inflationary gig, on the money supply of things.
When quality of life drops in America, especially for the most poor of people, then the government needs to decide to try to counteract that. They do this by increasing subsidies and welfare. If these programs are large enough to counteract the heavy inflation, they're quite expensive. Ironically, this further increases inflation, and leads to either (1) a weaker U.S. dollar, or (2) higher taxes, or (3) both.
In the case of a weaker dollar, you've now changed currency trading and interaction across the entire global economy. China and Japan are both looking at much stronger currencies vis-a-vis the dollar than in recent years, which sets off all sorts of unplanned chains of events.
As for taxes - most people dislike being taxed simply by virtue of having less money and things. As far as I can tell, most people don't like paying taxes and instead prefer to keep their money. However, raising taxes while simultaneously intentionally raising inflation has a particularly interesting outcome: Money and capital flow out of your country really fast.
Why? Due to inflation, people don't want to carry your currency or bonds. The value of the currency/bonds is going to be worth less next year than today, so you need to move it to an asset that you expect to increase in value or hold its value - a commodity, equity, or real estate perhaps.
Now, due to higher taxes, people have less risk tolerance. This is because typically (unless you're a bank, or in good with Washington) government doesn't pay you if your business fails, and does tax you if you succeed. That means that people invest less. Which normally might mean people holding cash reserves while looking for a change, but during inflation - people need to put the money somewhere, or else it'd get inflated away and you'd have less at the end of the year.
End result? Because people will seek to invest their capital (due to inflation), but be less inclined to do it in the USA (due to taxes), you get less long term investment in American industry. That means less long term employment created, less machinery bought, less real estate developed. Money that would get invested in Nebraska gets invested in Chengdu, or Goa, or Sophia.
Now, I'm a global sort of guy, and I happen to quite like Chinese people, and Bulgarians seem quite cool to me, and I hear Goa's a great place. So it's not a net loss for the world. But it does seem like a curious policy for the U.S. government to pursue.
It's especially ugly for for the poorest people who have the least control over their wages. And in a brutal double-edged fashion, Chinese, Indian, and Bulgarian industries become more efficient and cheaper which further causes less demand for American-made goods. The result? Greater unemployment. Which further depresses wages.
Messing with the money supply right now might suit some special interests (maybe like a bank with lots of bad debt on their books, that's holding assets that have crashed from an artificial high, that needs to liquidate those assets in order to pay obligations while nearing insolvency... hmm...). But it doesn't seem to serve the poor, the middle class, or the wealthy Americans very well.