I'm all in favor of term limits, but as long as there is money to be made in gaming congress, businesses will pay handsomely for people with those connections. People such as former congressmen, who will be able to use their connections with returning congressmen and quickly make connections with newly elected congressmen. They'll lobby for all the usual taxes and tax loop holes and things won't change all that much. To get rid of this problem, congress must have its ability to reward and punish via the tax code. That might be helped by term limits, but I rather doubt it.

In fact, the founding gathers DID tell us. Here is but one of many quotes on the subject: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 Facts are such pesky things, aren't they, Rep?

When a prostitute "does it" to you, you're more likely to enjoy it.

In regards to Hagel, Dr. Sowell's logic is not faulty. He pointed out how Hagel's combat wounds were being used as one reason Hagel should be approved for the post. Dr. Sowell pointed out that the same line of reasoning could be applied to many men who would never be considered for such a position. It's an emotional appeal intended to shut down debate concerning Hagel's actual qualifications for the position.

Suggestion for future posts -- when you write "one word descries..." it would be a good idea if you followed that with only one word.

LD is well known around Townhall for his satire.

1) Dr. Sowell's point wasn't how to improve economic forecasting. It was the idea that the Fed's forecasts should be trusted above any others. Too many people put faith in the Fed's numbers simply because they're the Fed and because so many in government tout the predictions. 2) Put the U.S. back on the gold standard.

That's the reason you won't find many Shakers around any more. Their membership only grew when adults joined the community. According to Wikipedia, as of 2009 there were a total of three Shakers remaining.

There are laws in place in Canada and Mexico setting the prices. As long as the drug doesn't cost more to manufacture than the pharma earns selling it, they will accept those price controls and pass all of the R&D costs on to the U.S. market. That's business. But if the U.S. tries to impose he same costs, there will no money to be made developing new drugs (and a lot to be lost). The industry will all but disappear. It's got nothing to do with being nice or fair. It's simply business.

The drugs are cheaper in Canada and Mexico because the government imposes a lower price by law. As long as the required price is higher than the cost of manufacturing the drug, pharmaceutical companies will always sell the drug at the government imposed price. That means the United States, which doesn't force this price on the pharmas, ends up subsidizing the cost of R&D for Canada, Mexico, and other countries with such laws in place. But what happens if the U.S. follows the lead of those other countries and imposes price restrictions? It will be impossible for pharmas to recoup their expenses so EVERY new drug will end up losing money. If every new drug becomes a losing proposition, no one will invest in their development.

You'll convince no one of anything if you keeping using all caps in your posts. If you're unwilling to learn to type properly, you have no business commenting on the anyone else's stupidity.