To Hell With The ‘Middle Class’


Here’s a term Americans hear endlessly during election seasons: middle class.

Those vying for political office bloviate continuously about protecting the middle class, expanding the middle class and empowering the middle class. After all, America’s middle class — the carpenters, plumbers, bank tellers, steelworkers, used car salesmen and farmers — represent the economic lifeblood of the Nation.

Those Americans who toil to achieve the picket-fence American dream vote and get politicians in office, yet they matter very little to most politicians once the ballots have been counted. The lowly middle-class voters, along with their needs and dreams, are then discarded in favor of more lucrative constituents belonging to the Nation’s military-industrial-Wall Street complex.

The United States is the richest nation on the planet; but regardless of what politicians would like for Americans to believe, its middle class isn’t doing so well.

As Les Leopold recently pointed out in a Huffington Post blog:

Our middle class is falling further and further behind in comparison to the rest of the world. We keep hearing that America is number one. Well, when it comes to middle-class wealth, we’re number 27.

The most telling comparative measurement is median wealth (per adult). It describes the amount of wealth accumulated by the person precisely in the middle of the wealth distribution — fifty percent of the adult population has more wealth, while fifty percent has less. You can’t get more middle than that.

Wealth is measured by the total sum of all our assets (homes, bank accounts, stocks, bonds etc) minus our liabilities (outstanding loans and other debts). It the best indicator we have for individual and family prosperity. While the never-ending accumulation of wealth may be wrecking the planet, wealth also provides basic security, especially in a country like ours with such skimpy social programs. Wealth allows us to survive periods of economic turmoil. Wealth allows our children to go to college without incurring crippling debts, or to get help for the down-payment on their first homes. As Bill Holiday sings, “God bless the child that’s got his own.”

Leopold considers the withering American middle class a direct result of a lack of ambitious liberal social and economic programs in the United States. He argues that stronger unions, universal healthcare, free college and more regulation is the answer.

President Barack Obama echoed a similar sentiment during a speech on the economy Wednesday, saying that the Nation needs more government efforts to lessen the Nation’s wealth gap.

“This growing inequality, it’s not just morally wrong, it’s bad economics,” he said. “Because when middle-class families have less to spend, guess what? Businesses have fewer consumers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther and farther apart, it undermines the very essence of America, that idea that if you work hard, you can make it here.”

But evidence abounds that liberal policy changes can’t be the answer.

The President’s very own attempt to provide universal healthcare has already begun to negatively affect the Nation’s economy — and especially the middle-class economy.

Employment numbers from June indicated that full-time jobs are being supplanted on a massive scale as companies steady their workforce numbers ahead of the implementation of Obamacare. The labor force lost 240,000 full-time jobs in June, continuing a trend that has seen 557,000 part-time jobs in the United States outpace the comparatively paltry 130,000 new full-time positions since the first of the year.

And Detroit, a bastion of union power, has been suffering the consequences of government meddling in business affairs for decades. As politicians made profit — without the benefit of government stimulus — nearly impossible for Detroit businesses, businesses left. And with no job keeping them tied to the city, residents left. Liberal policy meant to protect workers culminated in what is likely the Nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy in history.

But surely the money that the Federal government pumps into the Nation’s universities is emboldening the middle class. Well, not exactly.

Because colleges have access to too many Federal dollars and are incentivized to chase those dollars, the very programs designed to make college more accessible for Americans have an inflationary result, driving up the price of college. Meanwhile, the value of a degree falls. That is to say, colleges are spending money to chase money and the students are left behind.

So students from middle-class families are often taking on thousands of dollars in student loan debts — while their poorer peers qualify for larger Pell grant awards — in order to afford college prices that have risen artificially due to an influx of Federal dollars since the 1970s. Over the past five years, the average amount of student loan debt accrued by college students has risen by 30 percent to $23,829.

Because of a proliferation of economically damaging liberal policy initiatives such as Obamacare and pandering to unreasonable union demands, those debt-laden college grads can’t find jobs. About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates work jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests require less than a four-year college education.

Note from the Editor: Hyperinflation is becoming more visible every day—just notice the next time you shop for groceries. All signs say America’s economic recovery is expected to take a nose dive and before it gets any worse you should read The Uncensored Survivalist. This book contains sensible advice on how to avoid total financial devastation and how to survive on your own if necessary. Click here for your free copy.

Regardless of how staunchly conservative or liberal one may be, there is no way to deny that the U.S. has been dominated by liberal fiscal policy for just about a century.  And, more often than not, liberal fiscal policy initiatives have been gleefully accepted by a majority of Americans because of promises that they will help the middle class.

The reason the middle class in America is not doing so well has nothing to do with lack of government regulation or policy aimed at protecting this coveted segment of the American population. The reason the middle class is not doing well is that there is really no such thing as being middle-class. There’s being an American citizen who is financially comfortable and has an enjoyable work-life balance. But the only reason the term “middle class” exists is because it is a convenient way for the political power structure to promise comfort in return for economic and social freedom.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • KG

    Actually America has been dominated by the ghost of ‘Voodoo Reaganomics” for 30 years. The only economic solution that has been offered is tax cuts for the wealthy. And what has happened to the middle class this whole time? When Union membership was the highest in America, the 1950’s, America had a general prosperity never seen in the history of mankind. If you want to see real economic prosperity in America, then the people at the bottom have to make more money to spend. And that’s something Unions have been fighting for the whole time.

    Solidarity forever!

    • Warrior

      Twinkie purveyors of the world unite! Err, re-unite!

    • chocopot

      You’re a delusional fool. It is because of the Unions and their incessant and ridiculous demands that so many jobs have been moved overseas. Manufacturers simply cannot afford to produce most products in this country any more because it costs so much to do so; most of them would be out of business in short order if they tried to sell products made in this country due to the cost burden of unionized labor.
      As for Reagan’s policies, they produced an economic expansion unparalleled at any time during the 20th century. Why does that trouble you so much that you refer to those policies with such disdain?

      • me

        You might be a delusional fool too. without the unions, industries might revert back to the preunion days. the unions gave you your 40 hour work week, health care, paid vacation and lots of things you take for granted nowadays. I worked for Hostess till the strike. It was a mess. Lotsa people were wrongfully fired, but the union got them back to work. You were always under the threat of diciplinary write up. 4 of them and you were gone. wonderful huh? I worked for the beef packer IBP Inc. for most of my working life. It was nonunion. In 1982 Oxidental Petroleom took over the company. first thing they did was take $1.05 an hour from us. It hurt I had my job eliminated. The gave nickel, dime pay raises then increased what we paid for insurance every time. After a few years one of the original founders got it back. He learned well from oxy petroleum. same ol thing. Tyson took it later and does the same thing. Low income wages are still being paid. Now hostess has new owners. they are hiring thru a temporary agency. wages start about $5.00 less than we were making. After 90 days you get $14.00 an hour. who knows where it will go from there, the people hired back are working 12 hour days between 7&9 days week. When the company was union they could only keep the people there 10 hours. Some of the lines made 50 hours a week. Slow season went back to 40. the Tysons, Hostess Brands and all the nonunion companies love no union. they can pretty well take whatever they want from employees and make huge profits from paying nothing. Wal mart is another. It is said if Wal Mart paid their employees $12.00 and hour it would take about 1% of their profits.. I’ll admit that industries like the auto industries were a bit overdone, but with out unions wages and benefits wouldn’t be competitive and our standard of living would plunge. Unions have their pluses and minuses but the middle class would plunge towards poverty without them and things aren’t that great anyway in theis day and age.

        • BillP

          Thanks for a thoughtful response rather than the biiter one from chocopot. Starting off with the You are a delusional fool statement sets the tone for a one-sided conversation not a rational dialogue.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            What is this “thoughtful response” cliché supposed to mean? Is that new wording for being given permission to lie?

          • rbrooks

            sounds a lot like those who use the phrase, right minded thinking.
            similar to those who immediately resort to labeling any contrary statement as typical leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives, etc.

          • rbrooks

            sounds a lot like those who use the phrase, right minded thinking.
            similar to those who immediately resort to labeling any contrary statement as typical leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives, etc.

          • BillP

            Thanks for your positive reply, I love being called a leftist (whatever that may be) by someone based on my 2 sentence response. Anyitme you question someone obn this site it seems you are deemed to be lying.

          • rbrooks

            they label me a liberal progressive.

            it seems labels is all they have. very few on this site are willing to have a discussion.

            there are good and bad points in all of these issues.

            there are viable solutions.

            very few of the authors on the site, or their supporters, are seeking any viable solutions.

            perhaps over time they will become a bit more moderate and work to affect positive change that is good for the country and all of our citizens.

          • JeffH

            Ignorant progressive fits you better.

          • rbrooks

            your inability to comprehend is the cause.

          • JeffH

            rbrooks says “your inability to comprehend is the cause.”
            Don’t blame me for you being an ignorant progressive!

            You’re just another in a long line of progressive shills and trolls rbrooks…I look at people like you as the progressive “flavor of the month”.

          • chocopot

            Sounds to me like you are the bitter ones. I presented facts, you responded with emotions. Typical Leftists.

          • BillP

            Any time I disagree with someone on this site I’m told I drank the Kool-Aid, am delusional or not mature enough to understand what the person is saying. Being in my 60’s and having my own business for 15 years I believe I understand a lot of things and certainly am mature enough. What I replied to your comment was that you started off by calling the person a delusional fool. What is typical is your right wing response of calling me a leftist. You don’t know what my political philosophy is yet you labeled me because I question your starting a comment with a disparaging remark. If you disagree with someone do so but stop with the platitudes and snide name calling.

          • chocopot

            Perhaps you are new to this site, or perhaps you are not familiar with KG and his agenda. He is either a Marxist or is playing one. His hundreds, if not thousands, of postings on this site are very clear in that regard. For you to agree with him in any way makes you sound like a fellow traveler. If I have marked you as such incorrectly, then I apologize. But please note that agreeing with KG in any way, shape, or form does not look good.

          • BillP

            What I object to is that people use name calling instead of debating the issue rationally. I don’t KG or his politics, I responded to “me’s” comment. Whether or not we agree I don’t appreciate being called a leftist by and a liar by Nadzieja. “me” commented what unions had accomplished for the worker – 40 hour work week and paid vacations for a start.

          • chocopot

            I do not deny for a moment that there was a time when unions were necessary to bring to an end the gross exploitation of workers and horrible work conditions and mistreatment by the employers. But those days are long gone; there are literally thousands of federal and state laws that protect workers from every kind of mistreatment and poor work condition. What has now happened is the unions have become the exploiters, extorting and blackmailing both business and government for wages and benefits that to most workers would be only a distant dream. The unions themselves have been the chief cause of the loss of jobs in this country, especially manufacturing jobs. If a company cannot make a profit, it is gone, as are the jobs it provided. But the unions seem not to care. Most of them are so corrupt their only reason for existing is to perpetuate themselves, everyone and everything else be damned. They are why all those millions of jobs have gone overseas or simply disappeared forever.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          It was the unions which created the messes for the “middle class” and people are sick of the constraints of the unions.

        • Bill

          Why don’t you try working for your self and then you can control your own destiny. Instead of whining that someone else is not giving you enough

          • chocopot

            You are the one who is whining.

          • Bill

            I was replying to “Me”, Choc. I agree with your comments 100%

          • chocopot

            Sorry, Bill.

        • Alan

          You fail to mention that Hostess warned you guys that they couldnt continue without changes in union work rules, but you laughed at them. Even the teamsters told you that the company was’nt bluffing about closing the doors but you continued to deny. Is no job better than the one you Had?

      • Bill

        Good analogy, Chocopot,
        Reaganism Forever!!!

    • Bill

      You are quoting your Marxism again, like a good little comrade. We can always expect a good laugh from you.

    • rbrooks

      you can not use reason, logic or facts on this site.

      they would prefer to be peons in exchange for their belief system.

      • chocopot

        KG never uses reason, logic, or facts; he uses Marxist talking points, just like the fraud in the WH.

  • Seeker1212

    Much of the problems that this nation is facing was caused by the Middle Class. This happens to be the group that helped Obama get re-elected, these are the groups that we refer to as the Dis-Interested, and the Mis-informed, not that they didn’t care, it’s just that they were working so hard to carve out the good life for their family, that they didn’t take the time to be concerned about the real outcome.

  • dan

    city folks just don’t get that when the animals decide how much they’re fed…the farmer goes broke.
    …maybe reading Orwell ‘s Animal Farm (an allegory of socialism) would help

  • Lucy and Ricky

    Politicians only care enough about any of us just long enough to get our vote and then they throw us hell.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So if Americans know that politicians are a specific variety of human predators why do they manage to con the people on a regular basis and are given the precious vote? The vote is given out of what. Pity? Mercy? Stupidity? Laziness?

  • zenphamy

    The US ‘middle class’ has taken the brunt of political, rhetorical, and bureaucratic attack and malfeasance since at least the 30’s. The dream I grew up with was that everyone had an opportunity, if they wanted to work for it, to move up from the ‘middle’, while those in the ‘lower class’ had the same to move up to the ‘middle,’ and on to the upper.
    Now Obama and our other elects want to expand the middle and keep it the middle, through reducing the upper to the middle and increasing the population beyond our country’s real GDP capacity. It strikes me that a goal to move upward through the classes, (as much as I despise that word) should govern all of our thinking and politics.
    Such movement reduces the entitlement burden on the government as well as society in general while providing more revenue from a wealthier populace. This political reverse goal of ‘growth’ through population increases including immigration, mainly illegal, is nonsense. If I remember correctly, in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, we were concerned with population control, but now it seems that the government is urging exactly the opposite.
    What a bunch of ‘BS’.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Let’s try for another scenario that may happen soon, for all we know it is already happening. There are a lot of foreclosed properties within the middle class communities what if HUD has those properties and will be soon giving them away to the supposedly “poor”. What will happen to the middle class neighborhoods that normally maintain their properties, they will become rundown. Majority of middle class votes Republicans or they are Conservative or Libertarian, what if the middle class areas are to be diluted with Democrats, directly on purpose putting the wolves in the same enclosure as the sheep so the wolves have a ready source of sheep.
    That urban flight can go on for only so long until there is no place to go.

    • billybob

      The government has already tried to give away the houses. President Bill Clinton made the banks give money to people who they knew would’n’t qualify for a conventional loan. Most if not all didn’t have the income to even keep up the monthly payments let alone make a substantial down payment. Good loan policy is that the people who want a home must also be an investor in that home. Thus the banks want at least 20% down of the investors money. Now they have a vested interest in the home. What the government did was to make it so anyone especially low income people could buy a home with nothing into it. The banks took the entire loan. But the banks were smart enough to get insurance on the loans. So when the forclosures started and people wanted to save their homes, the banks didn’t want anything to do with the refi’s!! Why you say? Let me tell you what I see to be the biggest rip off of the new world ever! The banks went through the forclouses because they knew they would get back all of the original loan amounts from their insurance and that they could still sell the home and make a even bigger profit off of the sale. In terms of dollars I will show you a sample. The original loan amount is $100,000. The bank forcloses on the home owner. The banks go and turns in their insurance for that amount. Now the bank has a free and clear home that goes up for sale. It doesn’t matter what they sell it for it is pure profit. Now I’m certain that there will be people who say I’m a liar. Well kiddies it is the truth. Our Federal government banking system made a deal with the banks in order to make the home ownership of the poor a reality.

  • jim b

    You mean the sucker class don’t you. The sucker class has been caring the burden of an oversized government for nearly a century, each year another brick is placed in their bushel to carry. Now the middle class carries nearly half of the rest of the population, aka zombies, created by an obese government. Some may think that this is weakening the middle class, but contraire, when they finally drop the loads of crape they have been carrying around on their backs for this blotted government bureaucracy, they will emerge stronger and with purpose, that is, they will break the necks of these bureaucrats like tooth picks.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Governments apparently do not want a free flowing class structures in nations. They want to control who gets what school, home, job and how much money they make.
    The “middle class” of America does not need that government meddling or does it? Would it have created itself or was it artificially created by the government and the government is attempting to control what it lost control of?

  • Michael Shreve

    “… there is no way to deny that the U.S. has been dominated by liberal fiscal policy for just about a century…” The problem is that government CAN”T make people “middle class”. THAT is up to each person and the economy. It is INEVITABLE that government interference in the economy will NEGATIVELY impact the “middle class”. PARTICULARLY when it GIVES things to people rather than LETTING them earn them. ONLY fools WORK for what is free. Free phones, free utilities, free food, free housing, free healthcare, free education are ALL paid for by taxpayer dollars which are NOT free and will continue to dwindle as increasing numbers of FREELOADERS stop paying taxes and CHOOSE to become government chattels. The DOWNWARD spiral is gaining momentum.

  • Elton Robb

    I do believe it is the people, not the Government, that is ultimately responsible for the destruction of our nation. The people have created this bloated government, the massive inflation, and our current President. “We gave him everything,” and he still fails.

    The people will vote Socialist the majority of the time during economic booms. Why? Because they want to punish greed. Yet, they don’t see that greed is a malignancy with in themselves. I talked to a general contractor last week and he agrees that the Greed of the People is at the heart of our inflation.

    sure, we want our own swimming pools. Sure, we want room for a pony. Sure, we would like to have every convenience that the rich has. However, Afluence-sickness have appeared during the 70s and now everyone has the symptoms of “Afluenza.” We can change, we can repent of our Greed, but I fear it is too late to save our dollar. So, KG represents a symptom.

    Thomas Paine, who didn’t believe in God, said that Government grows because of the wickedness of the people. And inverse, he society develops when we are righteous. Well, we must have been a very, very wicked people.

    • MV

      I tend to agree with your basic premise. It isn’t fair to blame politicians for the greed and corruption of the system. Voters would vote the politicians OUT OF OFFICE if the voters were repulsed by the greed and corruption.

      Politicians will honor their oath to follow the Constitution ONLY when they risk getting voted out of office for failure to follow the Constitution. Since that isn’t something the voters want….the politicians are happy to do whatever else it takes to garner the votes!

  • boyscout

    On wealth distribution: Take back what was stolen by banksters and Wall Street scoundrels and jail them. Remove the “privileges” of our elected officials.Break up the coteries of revolving door cronies living high on the hog on legislative pork and secretive arrangements. Put some checks on the mufti-national corporatists who outsource and go untaxed. Get the CIA and whatever other nefarious government agencies are involved with drug trafficking to find alternate means of funding their covert ops. Start de-funding and don’t stop till the air clears.
    Hmmm. must be the Liberal in me.

  • Progressive Republican

    What a load of [crap].

    One example: “there is no way to deny that the U.S. has been dominated by liberal fiscal policy for just about a century.”

    Yes there is. It’s called: reality.

    Let’s go back a century. Conservative economics reign.

    During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. Then, the government uses austerity measures in a attempt to balance the budget in 1920 and a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity… although only for certain sectors of the economy.

    Hmm… sounds kinds familiar.

    An average of 600 banks fail each year.

    Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies. By 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

    By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely due to their poverty. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

    By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

    Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

    This is getting spooky.

    By 1930 conservative policies have plunged the entire world into the Great Depression. Thanks guys.

    No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression. Hoover thought it best to just ride it out.

    The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.

    By 1932, 10,000 banks have failed since 1929: 40 percent of the 1929 total.

    GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.

    Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.

    International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.

    Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 and another a year later. This separates savings accounts from the riskier investment accounts and ultimately helps put an end the the (approximately) 15-year “boom-and-bust” cycle that had been wreaking havoc with the economy.

    In 1933, alarmed by Roosevelt’s plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of conservative millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modeled after Mussolini’s regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.

    Today, many conservatives consider Butler a traitor.

    In 1934 the economy begins to turn around. GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.

    Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending.

    Fast forward to 1980. Former Governor Reagan commits treason by having William Casey and GHW Bush negotiate with Iranian hostage takers to delay their release until after the election in return for arms and supplies to repair military equipment that had fallen into disrepair due to the arms embargo. It worked.

    After election, he began dismantling all of the safeguards that had been out into place, effectively ended the “war on poverty (which had halved the poverty rate)”, GDP and production increase while median income levels off for the first time in American history (it has since lost ground), and much more.

    No sooner was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 passed and taxes cut, then Reagan started right away to raise taxes, often in sneaky ways.

    He reduced and eliminated tax deductions, effectively raising taxes.

    He adopted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which by 2007 brought in more tax revenue that the regular tax.

    He increased Social Security payroll taxes.

    Highway taxes were increased.

    The truth is the reduced tax burden as a share of GDP from tax bills enacted under Reagan came to less than one percent, with the middle class paying more and the rich paying less. In short, taxes were not effectively reduced. Except for the very wealthy. Y’know, the so-called “job creators?

    By the end of 1982, the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. Surprise! Well no, not really…

    To get out of the recession what does he do? Employs Keynesian economic policies. Successfully. So has every GOP President since, by the way. Reagan ran a Keynesian deficit of a bit over a trillion dollars, pouring huge sums of money in the economy and, recovering from the recession, the economy grew by about three trillion dollars, for a Keynesian/Samuelson multiplier of about three.

    Because of that pump priming and getting the economy going in classical Keynesian style, even with taxes rates on average about the same, revenues shot up tremendously and real personal income grew by $4000, as we were coming out of the recession. The deficit as a percentage of rising GDP dropped.

    Another one of his tricks was to deregulate the Savings and Loan industry. Anyone remember that? It’s not there anymore. Gone. Finito. D.O.A. Regulatory changes took place that gave the S&L industry new powers and, for the first time in history, measures were taken to increase the profitability of S&Ls at the expense of promoting home ownership. Gewinn uber alles (Profit over all)!

    There’s SO much more. Deregulation of banking and other financial institutions as well as numerous other industries have all been driven by profit over all. Since the inception of Pres. Ronnie’s policies, median income (when inflation is taken into account) has actually dropped.

    Bank failures which had approached zero before 1980 were on the rise by the time Ronnie left office.

    The same policies that were in effect before the Depression are largely back in place with the same results.

    So, only about half of the last century has seen the U.S. dominated by liberal fiscal policy. The other half has been conservatives screwing it up.

    “But evidence abounds that liberal policy changes can’t be the answer.” Only if you completely disregard little things like reality, history, and other such arcana.

    Congressional Rethuglicons are saying that the only thing that can stimulate the economy is the same bunch of policies that put us there in the first place!

    Then there’s another of the author’s lies: “The President’s very own attempt to provide universal healthcare has already begun to negatively affect the Nation’s economy — and especially the middle-class economy.”

    Um, no.

    First off, Obama almost immediately abandoned universal healthcare for the Rethuglicon-supplied and Heritage Foundation-authored alternative now derisively referred to as ObamaCare.

    Second, it is FAR too early to tell whether or not there is (or will be) any economic impact either good or bad.

    Picking a single month’s employment numbers or other anecdotal “evidence” and saying, “See? I TOLD you!” is spurious at best.

    Do you seriously expect me to believe that a policy that won’t take effect for another ear and a half is already depressing employment? Seriously?

    The rubes who regularly peruse FRWNJ sites like this one might buy it. People who are more reality-based won’t.

    Gimme a break.