I think we're pregnant, the only question is what color the baby's hair is going to be.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page: Congress doesn't have anything to do with monetary policy other than rubber-stamping any Fed nominees that the President submits to the Senate for consideration. The Fed is a nominally-independent body with terms intended to make them somewhat immune to Congressional or WH meddling. The nominees themselves still matter (which is why President matters), but as we'll see in a minute, externalities constrain monetary policy more than they should. In a perfect world, the Fed should be concerned with nothing other than the value of the USD, but that has largely ceased to be the case.
Historically, Congress has been constrained in terms of how much debt they could run up by a number of factors, not least of which was Fed policy. If interest rates are too high, the supply of dollars is constrained, etc, the Federal government could dig a hole pretty quickly. Currently, about 10% of the Federal budget every year is spent on debt service (interest payments) on the current national debt. Contrary to a lot of the bullshit you hear from talking heads on TV going on about "wasteful spending" - most of the Federal budget and most of the debt is related to various forms of insurance that are effectively "beyond debate". Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc, make up the lion's share of the debt and the projected spending. Bridges to Nowhere are unfortunate boondoggles, but rounding errors in the Federal budget.
That said, Congress probably learned the wrong lesson from 08/09. Long constrained (at least to a nominal extent) by the unknown machinations of current and future Fed policy, they discovered they could spend a lot more money than they thought possible, and the Fed would support those efforts. To this day, the Fed is spending $40 billion dollars per month buying bonds, warping market feedback on government debt levels. The Fed is buying Mortgage-Backed Securities, adding to distortions in the housing market and making it easier for subprime buyers to close on houses they might not be able to afford (not just poor people here - overextended wealthy just as much of a risk). When covid rolled around, the Fed went on a massive money-printing spree to the point where (as of summer 2021) roughly 40% of USD in circulation had been printed in the last year. That was fine, because the velocity of that cash had dropped precipitously (people weren't spending money b/c Covid/they didn't have anyplace to spend it). With the economy heating up post-Covid (and the velocity of money returning to normal levels), the Fed has limited options to control inflation. They can take cash out of circulation (sell bonds, raising interest rates), they can raise interest rates directly through the overnight cash rate, or they can sit on their hands and hope it all works out. Getting back to the point earlier, raising interest rates could be a huge problem for the Federal budget, and based on Fed behavior at present, seems to be a scenario they don't want to pursue.
So you're going to get inflation, the question remains how much and how quickly. The 'stagflation' scenario is probably a best-case: inflation is a persistent problem, but it simultaneously reduces economic growth (compounded by covid-related supply chain issues). Everything costs more in absolute dollars, but nothing fundamentally changes. Economic growth sucks, but Weimar is avoided. The upside here is that everyone gets to be a millionaire.
There are at least a couple of ways to make hay here. Avoid investing in "growth" stocks. High inflation kills growth companies; put your money in energy, industrials, materials. Borrow money to buy inflation-resistant assets in today's dollars to be repaid with tomorrow's dollars. Lastly, be skeptical of any Fed data.