Senator Charles Schumer Speaks Passionately
Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 11 months ago to Politics
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
tough to not stay away from politics. that doesn't change who chuck is.
This is the same nitwit that thinks the three branches of government are the house the senate and the president.
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.