Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump recently descended upon battleground states with very different economic narratives, each trying to win over voters who are understandably anxious about the state of their wallets. While Harris was busy touting herself as a friend to capitalism in a speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Trump was out in Mint Hill, North Carolina, holding her feet to the fire for her past failures during her tenure in the White House.
Harris, in what can only be described as an ambitious attempt at a PR makeover, professed her newfound commitment to pro-business policies. Her promises to cut red tape and boost the private sector were met with a shrug from skeptics who remembered her history of regulatory pandering and government overreach. Meanwhile, Trump was blunt in questioning why Harris hadn’t enacted these pro-business policies while she had a front-row seat to America’s economic struggles as vice president. Known for his no-nonsense approach, Trump’s remarks served as a reminder that talk is cheap, especially when it’s coming from someone who has spent the last few years in a cozy office instead of rolling up their sleeves to address real issues.
Harris and Trump wrangle over who's the real capitalist, pro-business, tax-cutting candidate https://t.co/XoLv07VeBr
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 25, 2024
As Harris tried to position herself as a capitalist, she managed to dodge any specifics about her economic strategy, leaving many to wonder if her proclamation was more about spin than substance. While presenting vague aspirations of making the U.S. a leader in emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing, her statements came off as little more than empty slogans, especially to those who remember her party’s questionable history with business.
In North Carolina, Trump wasted no time reminding voters of Harris’s lengthy record in office and her apparent failure to deliver significant economic reforms. He pointed out the glaring contradiction in her claims to support businesses while many companies were struggling under the weight of existing regulations and inflationary pressures exacerbated by the Biden administration. According to Trump, it was time for Harris to stop the grandstanding and start delivering results, or her nice-sounding words would remain just that—words.
With both candidates branding themselves as tax cutters, it was a theatrical showdown of who could paint the other as the bigger threat to the middle class. Trump took an aggressive stance, labeling Harris with colorful monikers like “tax queen” and accusing her of being an “economic wrecking ball.” Harris, on the other hand, claimed she was fighting for hard-working Americans, but her proposals resembled a typical liberal wishlist of government subsidies and price controls that historically do more harm than good.
Polling data indicates that despite Trump historically commanding the economic narrative, Harris has managed to close the gap in voter confidence regarding the economy, thanks in part to some positive news in the market. With indicators like rising stocks and stabilizing prices, it appears some voters are willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt. However, with persistent concerns about the high costs of living still nagging at families, one must ask: can Harris really convince voters that her administration won’t just add more layers to an already bloated bureaucracy under the guise of helping the economy? Only time will tell if flashy promises can translate into tangible results, but history suggests that voters should buckle up for a bumpy ride ahead.
