Fascinating! Obama and the Democratic Congress saved our economy! And I kept the Martians from taking over the planet. I've just as much proof for my claim as anyone does for yours. Then, you might back up your point with history: Like when, within 4 months, the economy began recovering from the October 29 crash, and unemployment dropped from 9% to 6%, BEFORE the government got involved in fixing things; then when Hoover got involved the economy tanked; and FDR continued the downturn for an unprecedented 10 years. So far, Obama has done a good job of duplicating FDR's results. As for deficits: You might want to check the Constitution: All revenue bills must originate in the House, and all Revenue and Spending bills must pass...

True, Boehner must care about tax-breaks for millionaires. That's why he (and all the other Republicans in the House) votes against the Corporate Jet depreciation deal. History has repeatedly demonstrated that the way to get more in taxes from millionaires is to lower their tax rate: as happened during the administrations of Harding, JFK, Reagan, and Bush II. But then, History is a funny thing: it deals in facts, not polemic. As for the Tax Breaks: ya mean like the ones Obama has had created for his friends and contributors, like General Electric?

Ideologues. Like Jefferson and Madison? Lincoln? Wilson? FDR? Jesus? It's the ideologues who get things done, rather than just get along. Ideologues don't sell out. President Bush 41 was a get-along, non-ideological guy, and ended selling out. Franken is a fruitcake. A hater. His is an imaginary world of devils he must fight. His ideology is distorted and ugly. Hitler had a similarly distorted ideology. It's the nature of the ideology, not the fact of having one, that makes all the difference. We've had enough of Republicans compromising with, or even selling out to, Leftist ideologues.

Call 911. Then call Dominos for a pizza. See who gets there first.

How can fiscal conservatives fight overweening government power when allied with social conservatives who want to expand government power over "moral" behavior? Could there be a socially-conservative libertarianism? One that thinks people should be sexually chaste but the government should have nothing to say about it? One who thinks people should not smoke dope, yet thinks the government has no business outlawing it? One who thinks pornography is ugly and good people shun it, yet the government has no business regulating it? Someone who believes in (trusts) the moral judgment of the citizenry as much as he trusts their economic and business judgment? How can someone who wants the government out of the board room ally himself...

Would legalizing drugs reduce crime? That experiment has already been done. It started 90 years ago. Within 10 years the results were in.

Would government regulate the trade in recreational drugs? Maybe. Or customers (users) would, by refusing to buy inferior quality or by suing for damages from tainted product.

Outlawing drugs pushes the trade outside the law - that's what "outlaw" originally meant. Outside the law there are no courts to enforce contracts or support tort claims. Contracts are enforced and damages collected by private violence. Outside the law.

If regulation is too onerous, people in the trade voluntarily move outside the law: smuggling and bootlegging to avoid tariffs and taxes. ...

Stamps: an interesting example. As if the Post Office were in the business of selling stamps rather than in the business of transporting and delivering mail. A stupid, trivial attempt at rebuttal.

True, every business (of any type) has competition. But only the U.S. Post Office may legally deliver mail. Only the U.S. Post Office may legally deliver items to mail boxes. It is a violation of federal law to directly compete with the Post Office.

Ah, but clever people have figured out how to compete indirectly. While no one is allowed to deliver paper envelopes and paper magazines (or junk mail), it is legal to deliver personal messages, news stories, and advertisements electronically. The Post Office is so inefficient...

One of the interesting things about the October 1929 crash is it was caused by the government. Treasury increased the money supply in summer of 1928 to keep the market booming and help elect Hoover. In summer of 1929, Treasury stopped the monetary growth. Abruptly. 3 months later, the market crashed. Just as monetary theory says it would.

Did foolish behavior by private investors contribute to the crash? Of course. But government policy of boosting the market rally created perverse incentives, actually encouraging and rewarding (in the short term) foolish investment.

Gresham's law (bad money drives out good) applies to investment, or any business for that matter: conditions that reward foolishness and dishonesty...