I wonder how many people were in the chamber when he spoke for that long on a Saturday? I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer than 10 Senators there. His speech seemed like a pseudo-filibuster, just filling time.
He spoke arrogantly, as if after 7 months he knows his way around Washington and economics. The speech will be remembered, but it's premature to know for what reason. The ability to speak is important to campaign, but the ability to think is perhaps equally important. What idea or solution, just one, has Rubio developed or proposed since he took office that is new, original, developed or proposed since he campaigned and was elected that was not used in his campaign? Go all the way back to November 2 if you want. Name one. Opposing the ACA doesn't count since he campaigned against it and to repeal it.
In that speech he went as close as any public official I've ever heard or read about to crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre. That portion alone, which he now highlights on his website, was irresponsible.
Over and over new Senators learn you don't arrive in Washington as if you're going to save the country. Hillary Clinton, for one, did that textbook, for quite awhile, working with members of both parties and developed relationships and learned a lot about how Washington and the legislative process work. And she was not an outsider.
Now, on Rubio's site, at
rubio.senate.gov
he says, "Right now, forty cents of every dollar the federal government spends is being borrowed from future generations. This is unacceptable and a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable. We need a government that stops spending more money than it takes in."
That shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. And that he wants to crash the economy. He wants a balanced budget right now. He says "a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable" but he should know that it is going higher every year until we have a surplus. All projections are that there will be trillions of deficits before we reach a balance for a full fiscal year.
If he says "a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable", what (to him) is
a $15 trillion debt, a $16 trillion debt, or a $17 trillion debt?
He's uncomfortable with the subject.
And as an a aside, when IBM borrows money in the debt markets, does anyone on this thread think that they are borrowing from future (or even current) customers, or from "future generations" of customers? Of course not. They borrow in the debt markets because it reduces their cost of equity capital. They choose to leverage their balance sheet to increase returns to equity holders including buying back equity before they otherwise would have the cash to do so.
The United States also borrows in the debt markets based on its cash flow.
I expect FUBHO or steveharris will argue that the Fed is distorting the debt market and the interest rates the U.S. pays. |
