While it is obvious that the FED imposed artificially low interest rates and QE policies must cause distortions and malinvestments in the economy, that may not have affected the housing market to a great extent at the present time. During the collapse, housing prices dropped well over 30% while family incomes fell less than 5%. This difference should be expected to be followed by a period when housing prices rise faster than incomes to achieve a more normal market relationship between these two factors even in the absence of bad FED policy. Of course the Fed policies will cause distortions in other areas, and a huge problem appears to have already formed regarding student loans, and fannie mae and freddie mack are still making bad loans.

Mr. Blackwell is incorrect in one respect. A USA Today article from 3/20 is cited on the Drudge report today. The article shows that President Obama's current popularity throughout the world, including the middle east, has fallen well below the levels of President Bush from 2008.

Given Professor Adams intimate familiarity with liberal nonsense, I'm surprised to see him use the term McCarthyism seemingly based on its leftest definition. I suggest that Adams read Blacklisted by History written by M. Stanton Evans.

Katie would be very persuasive in a world full of rational people. Unfortunately, she lives in a world where people vote for con-artists promising magic. I still think she's just great.

For UpwithRomney: What is the significance of the order sequence of naming these three countries; Maldives, Ecuador, Montserrat? The answer is that they rank 119th, 120th and 121st in GDP of all nations, just ahead of China in 122nd place. Just like it’s much easier for an obese person to lose weight than it is for an Olympic sprinter, it’s much easier for an impoverished nation to improve its GDP than for a wealthy, developed nation. It is not that China is doing so many things right, but that they are doing so many fewer things wrong.

Your post is statistical nonsense. You need to take a course in Bayesian probability. There are obviously millions of blue voters in red states and vice versa. The vast majority of the “deadbeats” in the red states are blue voters, just like in the rest of the country. They vote for the party which bribes them with welfare, no income tax, food stamps, 99 week unemployment benefits, mortgage principal modification programs, bankruptcy moratoriums, social security disability, etc.

Who do you think got the votes of the "deadbeats" in those "teabagger" states? I bet is was the same guy who received a super-majority of the deadbeat vote throughout the country. That would be the same politician who contantly advocates government programs to create more deadbeats to vote for his party. You are displaying the same ignorance of mathematical statistics that Lawrence O'Donnell showed when he complained after the 2004 election that the blue states paid the majority of taxes. It was quickly pointed out to him that the vast majority of those taxes were paid by red voters in those blue states.

John did not fully address the fantasy rambings of JasonQ42. Corporations are not "collectivist entities." They are voluntary associations of stockholders, who can end, begin, expand or reduce their participation at will by buying or selling stock. Television commerials are not "pro-corporate." Commercials are pro-product, attemptng to convince consumers that they can benefit by purchasing these products. The successful commercials are those that do increase product sales. So it is the consumers of these products who are the ultimate supporters of the television networks. Labor unions paid for hundreds of millions of dollars of political commercials during the election season, far out spending corporations in this regard.

I'm surprised that he left out Biden's comment about President Franklin Roosevelt going on TV to make a speech immediately following the stock market crash of October 24, 1929. Of course, TV did not exist at that time and Herbert Hoover was the President.