To Protect and Sever

Uncategorized

Though it’s clear that Brian Dubie would like to walk this statement back, a bit, I’d like to suggest a different approach:

We’re going to have to look at our programs and target the most vulnerable… it’s basic economics.

Brian Dubie, economist, would like you to believe that cutting services for the most vulnerable is “basic economics.”  What he doesn’t understand is that these benefits come with a stimulative benefit.  Though his campaign manager claims that the intended intent was to say “protect” and not “target,” the “basic economics” that Dubie fails to understand are that benefits for poor people encourage people to spend:

Giving money to the wealthy doesn’t increase spending and doesn’t improve the economy.  Giving money to the poor has a tremendous impact on the economy and can improve it dramatically, increasing state revenues as a result.  This is not the time to be taking a knife to benefits.  This is a time to be analyzing what benefits produce the most economic benefit overall and finding the best possible way to implement these benefits.

That is “basic economics.”

12 thoughts on “To Protect and Sever”

  2. I listened to it several times to get a sense of context, and I’ve just got to say that it really sounds to me like he meant what he said!  Until I had the time to listen to it carefully, I was ready to accept that it was just an example of Dubie fluffing his word choice; or the result of too many years of military chat around the Dubie dinner table.  But no, it actually sounds like he meant it.

  3. Not sure the Dems should be pounding the gaffes, since it didn’t work against Bush, even if they are revealing Freudian slips.  That’s not to say bloggers shouldn’t!

    Just target the reality: his policies throw out the social contract in favor of the rich, contrary to what Dick Snelling and the Leg did in the 90s.  AND he doesn’t understand that there is no job creation despite easy access to capital because there’s no demand, which comes from the bottom, not the top, so of course he fails to see the need for stimulus that comes from social programs, etc.

  4. You do know that you’re not actually “giving money to the wealthy” but rather taking less away.  

Comments are closed.