Kamala Harris and other radical Leftists now define government debt spending on entitlement programs an “investment” that they claim will produce “a return”… huh?

There aren’t many distinguishing characteristics between the emerging — and expanding — crop of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. 

All of them are running to the Left of Che Guevara and Mao Zedong in terms of public policy, and all of them appear to have graduated from the same Marxist school of economics attended by ‘Democratic Socialist’ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

That helps explain why an early notable candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, is running around telling anyone who will listen that government is akin to a corporation, factory, or business: Capable of producing a marketable product that can generate a profit.

Why else would she say during an interview over the weekend that massive government entitlement spending is an “investment” that will produce “a return” that’s beneficial to the country?

During an appearance on CNN’s “Inside Politics (where else?), Harris argued that our country can continue shelling out trillions of dollars on various entitlement programs as well as the “Green New Deal” Ocasio-Cortez introduced to guffaws and shaking heads earlier this month.

During the interview, host John King asked the California senator, “If you talk to Democratic voters, they’re hungry, and they want ideas. So you’ll hear things like the Green New Deal. You’ll hear things like Medicare for all. You hear things whether it’s taxed at a point do you say that’s our north star, but we have to be realists?” (Related: Venezuela was my home, and socialism destroyed it. Slowly, it will destroy America, too.)

“There’s no question we have to be practical. But being practical also recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to us as human beings. Being practical recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening our air and threatening the planet and that it is well within our capacity as human beings to change our behaviors in a way that we can reduce its effects. That’s practical,” Harris responded.

“Can we afford it?” King asked. “Of course we can afford it,” Harris answered.

‘Sure we can, John! Don’t let a little thing like a $22 trillion debt that’s growing bigger worry you!’

Government doesn’t create prosperity; it takes from the prosperous in order to exist and function

King said that some studies have pegged Medicare-for-all — which is just another Leftist name for “socialized, government-run medicine” — at between $2.5 and $3 trillion a year (or about $32 trillion over 10 years). And that’s before anyone adds in the costs of various aspects of the Green New Deal, which seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels for power generation within a decade.

“You know what Republicans are going to say, ‘tax and spend liberals, pie in the sky,’” King told Harris.

No problem, she responded. 

“It’s not about a cost. It’s about an investment. And the question should be, is it worth the cost in terms of the investment potential? Are we going to get back more than we put in?” she responded.

This is where libs like Harris go off the rails when it comes to economics. 

Whatever the “investment” is that she’s talking about, if it were a good idea, economically, and was in demand, the free market would have already developed it. But that’s not the kind of ‘investment’ Harris is talking about. 

In her Left-wing mind, “investment” means taking money by force, via heavy taxation, and plowing it into government ‘programs’ that produce no tangible results other than creating more constituents and solidifying the political empowerment of the Democrat Party. 

Leftists believe big government is the end-all, be-all of our existence. It’s not. Government is a necessary evil that we must endure and maintain order to have a functioning society. That’s all it was ever designed to be. 

For related news, check out KamalaHarris.news.

Sources include:



comments powered by Disqus