While Kamala Harris’ insane economic policy proposals are framed as bold and progressive solutions to foster equity and opportunity, a closer examination reveals a troubling disconnect from fiscal reality.

By championing expansive government spending and relying heavily on fairy tales like Modern Monetary Theory, Harris’s approach risks undermining the foundations of a sustainable economy.

Understanding Modern Monetary Theory

Vice President Kamala Harris has been a prominent advocate for policies rooted in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), promoting the idea that the government can create money freely to fund initiatives without the constraints typically imposed by traditional economic theories.

At its core, MMT is only an unprovable political theory that posits that countries that control their own currency can never “run out” of money like a household or business can. Deluded and deranged Marxist economists argue that this allows governments to fund social programs, infrastructure projects, and other initiatives without the same worries about budget deficits that have historically constrained fiscal policy. This perspective fundamentally corrupts the way politicians think about money, debt, and the role of government in the economy.

The Appeal of Infinite Spending

In recent years, the concept of MMT has garnered attention, particularly among progressive politicians and economists.

The allure of MMT is unmistakable: it suggests a pathway to progressive communist democrat dreams of perpetual political power through universal healthcare, free college, and robust public services funded by government spending rather than direct taxation, which would lead to revolt.

For many progressive communist democrats, this vision resonates deeply, especially in a time of increasing economic inequality and urgent social needs. Harris’s ardent advocacy for such corrupted policies taps into a widespread desire of certain nonproductive individuals and illegal aliens to receive something for nothing.

Even Kamala’s Socialist Father Knows Better.

Kamala’s Father, a Stanford University Professor known for his socialist perspective, criticizes both Marxist economics and Modern Monetary Theory. He provides insights into the limitations and implications of Marxist economics for its deterministic views on capitalism and class struggle, arguing that it often overlooks the complexities of market dynamics and human behavior. He emphasizes that Marxism leads to inefficient resource allocation due to centralized planning principles.

Similarly, in his analysis of MMT, the post-Keynesian and Marxian economist Harris highlights the risks associated with the theory’s assumption that governments can endlessly create money without negative consequences. He warns that this approach can lead to inflationary pressures and a disconnect between fiscal policy and real economic productivity.

Harris’ Father advocates for an approach that considers social justice and equity while critiquing the inadequacies of traditional capitalism and certain modern economic theories, including Modern Monetary Theory. His work emphasizes the need for alternative economic frameworks that prioritize the welfare of the broader society over profit-driven motives.

The Reality of Economic Constraints

Milton Friedman’s warning about third-party payers illustrates this type of thinking.

Milton Friedman’s critique of the “third-party payer” system underscores a fundamental problem with government spending. While individuals typically spend their own money wisely, weighing cost and quality, politicians often spend taxpayer money without the same restraint. This disconnect arises because the personal stakes of accountability and consequences diminish when using funds that aren’t theirs, leading to inefficiencies and waste. For example, Friedman argued that this thinking can result in rising healthcare costs as patients become detached from the actual price of services and may overutilize care.

The implications of MMT, treating money as an unlimited resource and ignoring fundamental economic principles, are dangerous.

• Inflation Risks: One of the most significant dangers of MMT is runaway inflation. When governments print money without corresponding economic output, it can lead to an oversupply of money chasing too few goods and services. This inflationary pressure destroys investments and erodes purchasing power, disproportionately affecting lower and middle-income families.

• Debt and Investment: The assumption that governments can spend indefinitely without consequences neglects the relationship between government borrowing and private-sector investment. If investors believe the government’s fiscal policy is irresponsible, they may demand higher interest rates or curtail investments altogether, leading to a potential credit crisis.

• Dependency on Central Banks: MMT relies heavily on central banks like the Federal Reserve to manage inflation and control the money supply. However, the Fed operates with a degree of independence that complicates the notion of government oversight. The interplay between political decisions and economic outcomes can lead to unpredictable and often detrimental results.

The Question No Progressive Politician Wants To Answer.

Time and time again, Kamala Harris is asked, How do you pay for all that spending?” She responds that everything will work out if corporations pay their fair share. However, nobody asks the follow-up question, “What is their fair share?” If Harris had not been such an ignorant, empty vessel, she might have realized that corporations do not pay taxes per se; they pass those charges along to their consumers and shareholders as higher prices (the cost of doing business) and a reduced rate of return on investments. 

In her interview with sycophantic MSNBC’s host/propagandist Stephanie Ruhle…  

[STEPHANIE RUHLE] Where do you get the money to do that? Do you still go forward with those plans and borrow? [KAMALA HARRIS] Well, but we're going to have to raise corporate taxes. And we're going to have to raise... We're going to have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That's just it. It's about paying their fair share.

Who Is Offering “Schmuck Insurance?”

“Schmuck insurance” is an “unofficial” term often used by Wall Street insiders to describe policies or protections that individuals might seek to safeguard themselves against poor government decision-making or misjudgments. While it may not exist as an official insurance product, the concept highlights the tendency of wealthy individuals who want to protect themselves from the consequences of their less-than-savvy political choices—whether it’s supporting a radical progressive communist democrat seeking to destroy America from within, engaging in risky behaviors, or neglecting their essential responsibilities.

Translating Komrade Kamala...

While some are laughing at Kamala's use of the word holistic and questioning if she understands what holistic means, more sober folks see grave danger in this progressive communist democrat's extortion. Featuring communist-style central planning, she links transit dollars to housing--using allocated funds to weaponize the federal government to dictate local zoning laws. Nobody voted for this!

By withholding critical transit infrastructure dollars unless a city, county, or state adheres to Kamala's housing plans, they will be forced to restrict single-family homes and create suburban ghettos. Lest anyone think differently, Kamala's roadmap is built on Kalifornia's housing failures. 

Bottom line…

As the U.S. navigates complex economic challenges, it is crucial to ground policy decisions in sound economic principles.

Advocating for policies based on MMT may sound appealing to the progressive communist democrats, but still, it is a fool's errand-- imposing devastating national security and economic risks to the nation. 

In the final analysis, Kamala’s pursuit of economic policy must be grounded in fiscal constraints and the unpredictable nature of monetary policy.

Harris’s vision is dangerous to every citizen, man, woman, and child, whether working, retired, or growing to maturity.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve