Staff Reports
David Solomon, a big-name executive on Wall Street, didn’t hold back on Vice President Kamala Harris after she invoked a Goldman Sachs report during her debate performance. Harris, who generally relishes in taking potshots at the big banks, suddenly found herself citing their research to claim that her economic agenda could lead to improvements in the economy. Solomon was quick to point out, however, that Harris conveniently ignored the report’s more significant detail: the mere two-tenths of one percent uptick in GDP growth that her policies might create, which could hardly be described as a game changer.
Solomon observed that the debate made the report sound much more important than it truly was. The piece from Goldman looked at a limited selection of proposed policies from both sides but revealed a meager difference that most Americans wouldn’t even notice. His comments make one wonder where the economic fireworks are that Harris has been bragging about. Given the history of stocks performing well in any given new presidential administration’s first year, it’s clear that Harris’s talking points lack substantive backing when it comes to boosting Americans’ financial well-being.
The VP’s ambitious economic agenda, notably hinging on reinstating tax cuts rolled back by former President Trump, boosting tariffs on Chinese imports, and combatting inflation, is merely wishful thinking without a solid legislative path. Unless she can conjure up a friendly Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, those grand ideas will likely remain just that—grand ideas. Solomon further clarified that whether any of these policies come to fruition is still up in the air; perhaps even Harris herself isn’t entirely convinced.
Kamala Harris's debate claims debunked by powerful Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon. His analysis revealed her policies would have negligible impact on the economy, contrary to her assertions. Read more at https://t.co/zVKTisjwF3
— Patriot911 (@Patriot911News) September 12, 2024
In a flashback to the 2019 campaign trail, Harris’s promises included a federal ban on fracking and extreme mandates for transitioning to clean energy. The question remains whether her recent leanings toward the political center are genuine or just a desperate attempt to broaden her appeal. The knee-jerk reactions from independent voters in swing states suggest they are skeptical. Many are left scratching their heads, unsure of what Harris actually stands for these days.
Voters like Mark Kadish and Robert Wheeler expressed doubts over her lack of clear, concrete plans. Instead of presenting a coherent vision, Harris devoted her time to denouncing Trump rather than clarifying her own stance. For them, it seemed more like a campaign against Trump than an endorsement of her policies. These reactions signal a growing concern among undecided voters: can they really trust Harris when her proposals can flip-flop like a fish out of water? As Solomon noted, it’s a tough sell trying to convince Americans that nebulous policies can spur economic growth when tangible proposals from the other side are readily at hand.
