Senator Charles Schumer Speaks Passionately

Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years ago to Politics
27 comments | Share | Flag

I heard this interview with Senator Charles Schumer on the radio. His voice sounds maybe a little down because Democrats are out of power. His tone changes when it comes to the topic of borrowing money to fund government spending. I sense he's really passionate about increasing spending using borrowed money.

This is from 6:15. You have to listen because it is not in the text.
You have to do [stimulus] with real spending! If you're gonna do it with real spending and garner good Democratic support, you're gonna alienate your hard right because they don't want to spend money. It's going to be [President-elect Trump's] choice.

Put me down as "hard right" according to this trait. I don't want them doing "stimulus" at all. It's a euphemism for going into debt faster than we already are.
SOURCE URL: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508221916/new-democratic-senate-leader-vows-to-hold-donald-trumps-feet-to-the-fire


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ CBJ 4 years ago
    Looters can be very passionate about their right to loot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      They are having a "great debate" about exactly how to borrow money.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by stargeezer 4 years ago
        If words have value, he's lying, just as he always does. You only borrow money you intend to pay back, anything else is love. Charlie boy is one of the biggest thieves and liars on the hill. He's never seen a deficit spending program that he did not love.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          "You only borrow money you intend to pay back"
          I'm risk averse, so I don't believe in gov't borrowing at all. I'm also risk-averse about any form of leverage in business. That's why this exchange stood out to me when I heard it on the radio. I think he's telling the truth about what policy he wants, and it's unfortunately opposite of what I want.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years ago
    While Trump's infrastructure spending is certainly controversial among Republicans, I will note that he is not talking about a "stimulus" plan. He is talking about building things -- something he knows about. His motto is "on time and under budget".

    If he really wants to fix some of our aging infrastructure and can do so in a cost effective manner that may not be bad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 4 years ago
      He talks a lot about public and private partnerships, infrastructure banks, etc., which basically make money available to be used - but in most cases the project supports its own cost in a predictable way.

      The other aspect is the US is literally falling apart. The I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, killing dozens. Most of our airports are worse than third-world, and our water and sewer systems are literally 50 years beyond their end of life. It's not popular, but we have to start rebuilding the country, and I'm not talking about "shovel ready" bullshit. I'm talking about the hard decisions and hard work to build new dams, to revitalize our freshwater systems and supplies, and rebuild our roads and bridges.

      It's not looting, it's leaving a world for our kids that isn't filled with potholes or collapsing on itself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      This is the same reason President Clinton gave for wanting to borrow money. He used the words "aging infrastructure". He went on to say it can be good to borrow money to buy a house but not to go out to dinner. The good borrowing = government spending for things the politician speaking approves of.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by EdGoldstein 4 years ago
        When a builder builds a subdivision he builds sewers, roads, even a water treatment plant if he must. To do this the builder borrows capitol on the basis of getting a return on the investment, because only then can he sell lots and start building homes. If Trump uses the "stimulus" as a builder, it will pay off.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 4 years ago
          "If Trump uses the "stimulus" as a builder, it will pay off."

          No, it won't. Reason: the government isn't concerned with profit.

          The whole "infrastructure" argument is a cyclical one that gets perpetually blown out of proportion and serves no one but government (because they use it as an excuse to levy taxes) and the building companies (who get paid Davis-Bacon wages on any project subsidized by the Federal Government). Yes, roads do wear out and have to be replaced. But that should be part of a standard maintenance and repair plan and part of a standard budget - not exceptional spending. If it has been neglected, that is the fault of the local governments and planning commissions who haven't been doing their jobs!

          The other problem with any argument in favor of government spending is that those people intentionally overlook where the money government spends comes from - our pocketbooks. Or worse: borrowing. We need to stop spending money. We need to get out borrowing and debt under control and only buy what we can pay for.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years ago
            Yes. Any time the gov't has an idea to do something like this, they should change the withholding tables the same month the program starts. If it's a great idea, maybe people will be happy to give up part of their paycheck. Most of they won't. If people got their pay in a stack of 100s and had to carry them across to the tax window and hand over a third of them, there would be a tax revolution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 4 years ago
              If there were no taxes withheld on a paycheck, you can bet that FICA, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would disappear overnight and the economy would boom.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years ago
        The key thing is whether your goal is to infuse cash into the economy or if you have to fix the road.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          "The key thing is whether your goal is to infuse cash into the economy or if you have to fix the road."
          They're independent issues: 1) Do you have to fix the road? 2) Do you do it with borrowed money or pay as you go?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by stargeezer 4 years ago
            I disagree that they are separate issues. They can be separate, but not with the economy like it is right now.

            As I see it, you can infuse money into the system the BO way, by giving it to friends (welfare and liberal big money donors), and when you are done you've wasted 10 trillion dollars and have nothing to show for it except for thousands of butt ugly windmills destroying the countryside. Or you can do it the Trump way and rebuild roads and bridges, the power grid (so that the windmills electricity can be used) and rebuild some of the broken down ghettos we are forcing people to live in. Money to rebuild schools, throw out stupid re-education programs that indoctrinate instead of teach our children. In other words, build things, lift people up and to really improve lives.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years ago
              "They can be separate, but not with the economy like it is right now. "
              We absolutely could have someone like you explain the benefits of increased government spending and then instead of borrowing the money, the gov't would change the withholding tables in the next quarter to cover the costs.

              People in favor of new gov't spending would promote it the same way as they do now, but at the end you'd say, "and if approved the average person's semi-monthly paycheck will go down by only $40." Maybe $40 a paycheck is a bargain if it does all the things you say. Maybe the benefits of the new schools and bridges easily be more than the costs.

              I'm saying the merits of borrowing are completely separate from the merits of a particular spending program. Gov't spending of all types would look a lot less appealing if we were paying rather than future generations. If we actually had to hand over $100 bills around the time we earned the money, there would be a spending revolution.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 4 years ago
    Enslavement has always been the passion of the left and it is sold as making everyone rich or comfortable or safe. The citizens of the US were sold into slavery in 1913 but not all at once, the chains keep getting tighter and the populace continues to accept if from the left or the right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years ago
    Blow up ObamaCare and spend it on real jobs for real infrastructure implemented by private companies. Should be a net savings, and jobs for people that want to work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 4 years ago
    Stimulus is a word with many meanings. Every time I hear Chuck the schmuck open his mouth I am stimulated to vomit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 4 years ago
      why do you listen in the first place. schmuck is a very good description of him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 4 years ago
        Easy answer. One vomits to get out what is upsetting and I always feel much relief directly afterwards. Living in NY I have much that bothers me and Chuck, Gillabrand and Hillary top the list. The state of NY could actually be a great place to live if they would just make NY City the 51st. state.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by wiggys 4 years ago
          I was born and raised there, for 31 years, then I sailed under the verranzo never to return except to visit and that has ended.
          tough to not stay away from politics. that doesn't change who chuck is.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 years ago
    Charles shumer has brown eyes due to how much s*** he retains in his body. he is the perfect example of what comes from the mouths of politicians when they open them LIES.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Dobrien 4 years ago
    Both links go to an article not a speech . Funny after Obama spends 10 trillion more than we take in over the last 8 Years he is now going to be frugal and that all of a sudden Schumer is going to hold someone accountable for what they say. "If you like your plan you can keep your plan"
    This is the same nitwit that thinks the three branches of government are the house the senate and the president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      "[Schumer] is now going to be frugal"
      It's the opposite of that. He wants to spend money.

      "Both links go to an article "
      It's an article about an interview. You have to click on the audio to get the interview b/c the text summary does not include Schumer's quotes about wanting deficit-funded spending.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo