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

May 11, 2017

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.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Glenn's Show Prep