Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

WHAT? Donald Trump Thinks He Invented the Phrase 'Priming the Pump'

May 11, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In an interview with The Economist, President Trump claimed to have invented the phrase "priming the pump." The rippling effect of the shockwaves made it to The Glenn Beck Program.

"'Priming the pump' is an expression that you'd never heard before? You'd never heard 'prime the pump,' and you claim to come up with it a couple of days ago?" Glenn asked incredulously on radio Thursday. "What the hell do you think 'quantitative easing' is? What do you even think 'helicopter money' is? What do you think 'tax cuts' are? You're priming the pump!"

In actuality, the phrase has been around for awhile --- a long while. First in the 1800s as related to water pumps and later in the 1930s as a liberal economic policy.

"Priming the pump is Keynesian," Glenn said. "It's been out since the Depression."

How is it possible that a man of Donald Trump's stature, a man who has been in business for decades doesn't know the common phrase "priming the pump?"

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: This is from The Economist. There's a story in The Economist now about what is the economic plan of the president?

And I just want to quote this. This is just -- this is all in verbatim, okay? So this is question, answer, question, answer. This is not somebody writing this. This is verbatim.

ECONOMIST: But beyond that, it's okay if the tax plan increases the deficit?

TRUMP: It's okay because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll -- you understand the expression prime the pump.

ECONOMIST: Yes.

TRUMP: We have to prime the pump.

ECONOMIST: Well, that's very Keynesian.

TRUMP: "We're the highest taxed nation in the world." Have you ever heard that expression before, for this particular type of event?

ECONOMIST: Priming the pump?

TRUMP: Yeah, have you heard it?

ECONOMIST: Yes.

TRUMP: Have you heard the expression used before? Because I hadn't heard it. I mean, I just -- I came up with it a couple of days ago, and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

GLENN: "Priming the pump" is an expression that you'd never heard before? You'd never heard "prime the pump," and you claim to come up with it a couple of days ago?

Priming -- what the hell do you think "quantitative easing" is? What do you even think "helicopter money" is? What do you think "tax cuts" are?

You're priming the pump. Priming the pump is Keynesian. It is -- it's been out for -- for -- or, Keynesian. It's come out -- how do you say it?

STU: Keynesian.

GLENN: Keynesian.

It's been out since the Depression. And before that, it was used for actual pumps.

STU: Yeah, I mean, it's obviously a phrase that's about actual pumps from the mid-1800s.

GLENN: So he's talking to a guy from The Economist that can talk deeply. And our president thinks he came up with the term, the economic term, "priming the pump."

Now, here's why this is a problem. It shows you haven't thought about this at all. If you have been in business, how do you not know priming the pump? How do you not know -- do we have that clip from Vice President Biden? Can you play that, Sarah? Do you have it?

BIDEN: Now, people say -- when I say that, people look at me and say, "What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we've got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" I answer, "Yeah, that's what I'm telling you."

GLENN: That's called priming the pump.

JEFFY: Priming the pump.

STU: Yeah. It's usually used by the left.

GLENN: Correct. So he's never -- he's never thought of stimulus. So when he was talking about a trillion dollar stimulus package, he didn't really understand the concept of priming the pump.

STU: Which is -- I believe an incorrect concept.

GLENN: I do too.

STU: However, if you're going to spend a trillion dollars, you should probably know it.

GLENN: So he didn't...think of that. It didn't connect to him that, yes, we're going to spend a trillion dollars, but that will get the economy starting to role.

Now, how is that even possible? More disturbing is, I think, how this happened. He wasn't just in bed going, you know what, it's like the old pump. And remember, you had to -- you had to prime it a couple of times. Push it a couple of times to get it going. And then it would -- he didn't say -- he wasn't laying in bed thinking about that. I mean, Viagra, I would imagine, is what he thinks of as priming the pump. But he wasn't sitting thinking about an old water pump and priming the pump and then tying that to economic theory. Here's probably what happened: He's sitting in a meeting and they're talking about the economy and what they're going to do. And somebody says, "Yeah, I mean, that's priming the pump." And he probably thought, "You know what, what you just said, you're all wrong about. Because you're probably all talking about the water, Viagra, something. But if we use money instead of water, priming the pump." And probably everybody in the room was too afraid or whatever to say, "Yeah. That's what this is. Priming the pump. That's what we were talking about. You don't think you just came up with that." They didn't say anything. So he goes off thinking, "I am a freaking genius. I heard some guy talking about priming the pump. And I thought to myself, wait. We're in an economic meeting. Let's tie that principle to money. You got to get that water flowing. Once you get that water up to the top, then one little push, and it all starts to -- I'm a genius."

That is --

STU: Yeah. It's not -- it's suboptimal, I would say.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you give him the benefit of the doubt, I mean, for this?

STU: Again --

GLENN: This is The Economist, verbatim.

STU: Yeah, no, I think you're probably right on how that's happened. Merriam-Webster today has been tweeting about how the term was first tied to economic principles in 1933. But I think honestly -- and correct me if I'm wrong here, Glenn, because it's scary that he -- you know, it's a ridiculous moment, right? But, I mean, it's sort of Trumpian. And maybe you're like, well, you know, he has these moments. And he takes credit for everything. He invented everything. He's always had the highest ratings. Like, maybe you could brush it off from that perspective, where he's just kind of bragging about what he does.

But in the -- what he's talking about is a liberal economic policy.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: He doesn't reject Keynesianism. He sticks with it. In fact, he doesn't -- well, he doesn't comment on it at all. Whether he knows what it is or not, I don't know. But the concept of priming the pump is very clearly a left-wing principle. It is -- it's Paul Krugman central. Right? Remember when Paul Krugman said --

GLENN: It's what we've been doing.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: -- remember when Paul Krugman was like, well, if we just had aliens coming down. If we thought aliens were going to attack, even if it wasn't a real attack, this economy would go crazy because we'd start spending and it would get all the spending going.

That is a left-wing principle. And the fact that, not only is that not offensive to me -- he doesn't stop the interview and go, whoa, whoa, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about Keynesianism here. That's not what this is.

He doesn't stop him because he doesn't either know or he does believe it. And the second one is worse.

GLENN: No, no, no. I don't think it's either of those.

We have to prime the pump. It's very Keynesian. We're the highest taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, this particular time of event? Priming the pump?

Yeah.

Have you heard of it?

Yes. I heard the expression used before -- or, I've never heard the expression used before. I hadn't heard it. I mean, I just came up with it a couple of days ago.

I don't even think he's listening to the guy.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: His answers don't matter. The answers of, yes, it's very Keynesian. Priming the pump. It doesn't matter. He's just monologuing, and the answer could be anything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's so convinced -- and the reason why I bring this up is, was anybody in the Oval Office saying, "Mr. President, do you know what you're going to do by bringing -- you're going to bring hell down on all of us?" There are obviously 30 people that are talking to the Washington Post that don't feel like they have -- they're being listened to at all by this guy. And they're saying these things -- I mean, his friends are -- are saying these things.

Is it because they feel like he's not listening and this could be trouble?

I mean, there is a problem when you have 30 people in and around the West Wing that are leaking on something that could be the end of a presidency. That's -- that's not good.

STU: No.

GLENN: And I think it's because, is there anyone that is around him that is saying, "Mr. President, you can't -- no. Stop."

STU: It's funny. The only two I've seen that have been reported as to opposing the Comey firing. Not because they loved Comey, but because they thought it would be this disaster of a PR issue. The only two that I've seen: Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. Apparently they were like, "Eh, this isn't a good idea. It's not going to look good."

Everybody else was like, "Well, it might not look good, but it's worth doing." At least that's the reporting. We'll see how that fleshes out.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.