Responsibility for the middle class wealth crash

If you’ve been here a while, you may recall that I posted an article called “Responsibility for the national debt part deux: control of the purse strings of Congress is the real determinant”, which demonstrated that the truest indicator for the economic health of the country is which party is in control of Congress.  It is worth a re-read.  Recent events called that post back to mind.

As you may have heard, the Washington Post published an article called “Americans saw wealth plummet 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says“.  I think the title tells it all.

Now let’s review: who had complete control of Congress from 2008 to 2010?  Yes, it was Queen Pelosi and her flying monkeys, the same Pelosi that was on the today’s CBS This Morning show telling us all how Øbama will focus on jobs (yet again) in his second term: “the president was a job creator from day one“.  The same “economic giant” Pelosi that told us that welfare and food stamps create jobs.

I bring this up because you can be sure that the Democrats (with the possible exception of Carter) will pull the old “under Bush’s watch” meme out, as has Øbama, to defect attention and responsibility for the poor economy.  Or should I say “the worst economy since the Great Depression?”  😉  It might also explain why they are trying so desperately to convince the middle class that Romney is bad for them.  To wit:

The recent recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data released Monday, with ­middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.

The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.

I think it is pretty obvious (although not from reading this article in the WaPo) that it is Øbama and the congressional Democrats that are bad for the middle class.  Clearly, they doth protest to much.

By no means does this let Øbama (or Bush) off the hook, but a president does have a fair degree of influence, particularly when in agreement (or in thrall) with the party in control of Congress, but the true purse strings are in the hands of Congress, which explains why Harry Reid is snuffing out all legislation from the Republican controlled House: he can’t afford to have the Republicans look good, and a (correct) conclusion be drawn that Republicans generally improve the economy, while Democrats drag it down.

Like Reagan, a strong, principled, well spoken president, who understands economics, can improve the economy by influencing a Democrat controlled Congress to go against its base nature.  It is even easier when Democrats are in the minority.

Remember in November.

Posted in ,


A TEA party partisan, guerrilla fighting in the trenches of liberal Massachusetts.


  1. JBS on June 15, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Here, Here! Dimsdale, jolly good post.
    Let me go a little further and observe that the Democrats have been in control (of? Congress) since the last two years of Bush’s (43) term and, if you look back in time, the Democrats have controlled the purse strings for a greater number of years than the Republicans. That does not in any way let the ‘Publicans off of the hook.
    Where did the wealth go? Hmmmm. Let’s see. I am more than sure that if you are a union elite you did very well. Politically connected? Being a Democrat would be very good for your wallet and bank account. Backing a big Dem? Even better.
    If you were a defense contractor you did even better. Ka-ching, $$$$ into the estate. Nice and cozy.
    Lately, if you happen to be politically connected and were in a certain sector of the GREEN industry, you could be retired and be totally set for life, your kids life and beyond.
    Yeah, where did the money go? There’s always being a friend of BO. He doesn’t want to associate with any poor people . . .

  2. ricbee on June 15, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    The stimulus plan has destroyed the private sector & inflation is eating our savings away.

  3. RoBrDona on June 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    A combination of factors led to the initial recession. I would argue that they were systemic (and natural in our system), but aggravated by the RE bubble caused by Congressional mandates to lend to the unqualified.? The fact that the markets have only made up a small portion of that fall is a direct result of the bunker mentality of corporate America which will continue to insure very slow growth and virtually no hiring. When you know that you will be punished by the Communist in Chief if you show a profit – you lay low and keep your head in the sand.?

    • Dimsdale on June 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      When your head is in the sand, your butt is naturally up in the air.? And needs to be kicked…..

  4. Lynn on June 17, 2012 at 7:52 am

    Well, all I can say is ?” Happy Father’s Day” to all middle class dads. Your job just became a little harder to bear.?


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.