Staff Reports
Former President Donald Trump recently sounded the alarm over the prospect of Kamala Harris taking the helm of the presidency, claiming that her election would mean a disastrous economic landscape worse than the current Biden-Harris administration. According to Trump, under a Harris administration, the nation could expect an alarming increase in inflation and draconian Soviet-style price controls. It’s a sentiment that strikes a chord with many conservatives who have felt the pinch of rising costs and rampant government intervention.
Trump didn’t mince words, asserting that if Americans think they’re financially strapped now, they’re in for a rude awakening should Harris get her hands on the Oval Office. He painted a grim picture of what her policies would entail, predicting that her plans could lead to the abolition of private health care as it is known today, making California’s tax schemes the standard across the nation. Imagine getting taxed up to 80% of your income—all in the name of some overreaching government plan that promises to solve everything while actually making lives more difficult.
If you think things are expensive now, they will get 100 times WORSE if Kamala gets four years as President. Under her plan, Kamala will implement SOVIET Style Price Controls. She will abolish private health care, and make California's ridiculous tax policies the law of the land,…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2024
This warning comes on the heels of Harris proposing several dubious economic initiatives, such as implementing price controls on groceries—a move that many economists would likely describe as a surefire way to create shortages and ignite further inflation. Adding to the absurdity, her plan to provide first-time homebuyers with a $25,000 down payment might seem enticing on the surface, but upon closer inspection, it raises questions about sustainability and the actual responsibility of homeownership.
Interestingly, Harris has also begun to mirror some of the policy proposals championed by Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance. For instance, she caught wind of the idea to boost the child tax credit, but of course, had to one-up it, suggesting an expansion to $6,000. This might make it seem like she has the interests of families at heart, but conservatives know that such populist moves often come with strings attached and ultimately lead back to more tax burdens on the middle class.
The irony here is rich. Harris, who once stood firmly behind sweeping changes to healthcare—specifically supporting the elimination of private insurance—has now allegedly pivoted away from single-payer health insurance. This flip-flopping illustrates a political strategy that thrives on gauging public sentiment and mirroring popular campaign rhetoric, rather than offering principled solutions. As she dances around important issues, conservatives remain skeptical of her true intentions behind these sudden policy changes and what kind of economic mess they might be setting the country up for in the long run.
