Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,336
- 2,692
- 1,928
What's your point?
How Would Milton Friedman Do DOGE?
- Thread starter YoursTruly
- Start date
Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,336
- 2,692
- 1,928
How do you define socialism?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
He's a smug neo-Marxist who knows every-*******-thing, and will go to any and every sneering superiorist length to let you know it.
Here are the proper functions of government according to Milton Friedman:
Friedman states that the basic essential functions of government are to: (1) to defend the nation from coercion from the outside and to defend individuals from coercion by others within the country; (2) to enable the free market by establishing rules for exchange and by providing the medium of exchange; and (3) to respond to neighborhood effects. He says that the government should do only what markets cannot do and should enforce the “rules of the game.” Specifically, the government should maintain law, order, and policy to prevent coercion; preserve the peace and provide for national defense; adjudicate disputes and enforce contracts voluntarily entered into; define the meaning of property rights and provide the means for modifying them and the other “rules of the game”; provide a monetary framework; foster competitive markets and overcome technical monopolies; and address neighborhood effects which are actions affecting others (e.g., pollution) where it is not feasible to charge or reward them. Friedman explains that where the actions of one person affect another, and where the range and value of the effects can be controlled and determined, those involved should pay the price or receive the benefits or compensation for the actions.
Milton Friedman and the proper functions of government
Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government Uploaded on Oct 8, 2010 Professor Friedman lectures on the proper role of government in a free society Here are the proper functions of governm…
thedailyhatch.org
". . .Since politicians are unlikely to control spending in the short run (their time horizon is always the next election), our best hope is to get them to agree to a rule that constrains what can happen in the future.
I’ve repeatedly argued in favor of a spending cap. Such a policy has a proven track record, and is far more effective than a balanced budget requirement.That’s what should happen.
Now let’s focus on what shouldn’t happen. As Milton Friedman famously observed in 2001, tax increases are never the solution because politicians will simply spend any additional revenue (and the tax increases also will hurt the economy and cause Laffer-Curve feedback effects). . . "
Milton Friedman on Spending – Dan Mitchell
How we counteract a disturbing trend.
freedomandprosperity.org
"Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax ... If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The thing you should keep your eye on is what government spends, and the real problem is to hold down government spending as a fraction of our income, and if you do that, you can stop worrying about the debt. . . "
--Milton Friedman
Remember Milton Friedman: Spending Is Taxing | RealClearPolicy
Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because thats the true tax ... If youre not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, youre paying for it...
Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,336
- 2,692
- 1,928
Incompetent rebuttal, off point, off topic.
Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,336
- 2,692
- 1,928
"Governments should do what the free markets cannot do" -- Milton Friedman.. They cannot self regulate, which justifies the various, they cannot set industry standards, which justifies oversight regulatory agencies, it justifies the CFPB, it justifies the Dept of Education, and just about everything the government does, mosts of it private enterprize cannot do, and that includes Medicare and Medicaid. It should include medicare for all. why? Because the free market cannot bring affordable health care to everyone. The free market cannot deliver inexpensive mail to everyone and especially to rural routes, and do it cheaply. When we scrutinize his principle, we discover that the government has to be bigger than he thinks it should be.Here are the proper functions of government according to Milton Friedman:
Friedman states that the basic essential functions of government are to: (1) to defend the nation from coercion from the outside and to defend individuals from coercion by others within the country; (2) to enable the free market by establishing rules for exchange and by providing the medium of exchange; and (3) to respond to neighborhood effects. He says that the government should do only what markets cannot do and should enforce the “rules of the game.” Specifically, the government should maintain law, order, and policy to prevent coercion; preserve the peace and provide for national defense; adjudicate disputes and enforce contracts voluntarily entered into; define the meaning of property rights and provide the means for modifying them and the other “rules of the game”; provide a monetary framework; foster competitive markets and overcome technical monopolies; and address neighborhood effects which are actions affecting others (e.g., pollution) where it is not feasible to charge or reward them. Friedman explains that where the actions of one person affect another, and where the range and value of the effects can be controlled and determined, those involved should pay the price or receive the benefits or compensation for the actions.
Milton Friedman and the proper functions of government
Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government Uploaded on Oct 8, 2010 Professor Friedman lectures on the proper role of government in a free society Here are the proper functions of governm…
". . .Since politicians are unlikely to control spending in the short run (their time horizon is always the next election), our best hope is to get them to agree to a rule that constrains what can happen in the future.
That’s what should happen.
Now let’s focus on what shouldn’t happen. As Milton Friedman famously observed in 2001, tax increases are never the solution because politicians will simply spend any additional revenue (and the tax increases also will hurt the economy and cause Laffer-Curve feedback effects). . . "
Milton Friedman on Spending – Dan Mitchell
How we counteract a disturbing trend.freedomandprosperity.org
"Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax ... If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The thing you should keep your eye on is what government spends, and the real problem is to hold down government spending as a fraction of our income, and if you do that, you can stop worrying about the debt. . . "
--Milton Friedman
Remember Milton Friedman: Spending Is Taxing | RealClearPolicy
Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because thats the true tax ... If youre not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, youre paying for it...www.realclearpolicy.com
Monetarists understand the nature of inflation, they know how to cure inflation, but that's about it. What they don't understand is that the government must be bigger than they think it should be, because guys like Friedman look at the government simplistically. However, Friedman supported a negative income tax, which is welfare.
Last edited:
A couple of quick comments/observations here;
1) Some Agencies/Depts may not need to be totally eliminated, but could be greatly reduced in size and costs.
For Example, the EPA when formed over four decades ago did have important tasks to perform. After setting environmental standards on pollution, clean air and Water, etc. most of these issues were fixed and improved within a couple-few decades. The EPA could be greatly reduced in size to when that is just measuring compliance rather than doing what Agencies often do; find new ways to justify and/or grow existence.
Case in point from where I last worked. It was a small industrial manufacturing company located about half a mile from the waterfront of Puget Sound. Occasionally the EPA would come and inspect and test and the only issue they could find and be concerned over was bird fecal matter in the rain water runoff int the storm drains. Well, it's illegal to shoot the seagulls and we have no way to prevent them flying over and/or perching on roofs, poles, etc. around the facility. And seagulls, like most birds, want to poop a lot. So EPA would write us up and ding us with a small fine for letting the seagulls and other birds poop on our facility and then letting the rains wash that poop down the storm drains.
CATCH 22 !
EPA has also been setting compliance standards that are below nature produced emissions and 'pollution' so it's nearly impossible for business and industries to comply when Nature is allowed to exceed the standards EPA wants to impose.
So if EPA can't reduce down to a single digit percent of it's former size and budget, and apply common sense, rather than fabricate excuses and compliance standards that are unrealistic and just serving to justify it's existence, than maybe it should be gone completely. But give it a chance to reduce and gain common sense first.
2) My oldest son is employed with US Customs and Immigration Services, a subset of Homeland Security. USCIS is unique among government agencies and departments in that about 97% of it's funding is through user fees for processing applications, documentation, and background checks, etc. for green cards and citizenship.
The fees are paid by those applying for individual citizenship and also by employers who hire immigrants. My son told be the total costs varies per case but can go from about $3,000 to $12,000; but the lower range is most common. Here's the published list of fee schedule;
A question that comes to mind is could other Government agencies/departments also go to some fee structure paid for by those persons and businesses they interact with rather than from taxpayers in general~at-large ?
................
My point here is that while reductions in staffing and related expenses are greatly over due, there may be a few other options to look into and consider that will also reduce the tax funding burden.
1) Some Agencies/Depts may not need to be totally eliminated, but could be greatly reduced in size and costs.
For Example, the EPA when formed over four decades ago did have important tasks to perform. After setting environmental standards on pollution, clean air and Water, etc. most of these issues were fixed and improved within a couple-few decades. The EPA could be greatly reduced in size to when that is just measuring compliance rather than doing what Agencies often do; find new ways to justify and/or grow existence.
Case in point from where I last worked. It was a small industrial manufacturing company located about half a mile from the waterfront of Puget Sound. Occasionally the EPA would come and inspect and test and the only issue they could find and be concerned over was bird fecal matter in the rain water runoff int the storm drains. Well, it's illegal to shoot the seagulls and we have no way to prevent them flying over and/or perching on roofs, poles, etc. around the facility. And seagulls, like most birds, want to poop a lot. So EPA would write us up and ding us with a small fine for letting the seagulls and other birds poop on our facility and then letting the rains wash that poop down the storm drains.
CATCH 22 !
EPA has also been setting compliance standards that are below nature produced emissions and 'pollution' so it's nearly impossible for business and industries to comply when Nature is allowed to exceed the standards EPA wants to impose.
So if EPA can't reduce down to a single digit percent of it's former size and budget, and apply common sense, rather than fabricate excuses and compliance standards that are unrealistic and just serving to justify it's existence, than maybe it should be gone completely. But give it a chance to reduce and gain common sense first.
2) My oldest son is employed with US Customs and Immigration Services, a subset of Homeland Security. USCIS is unique among government agencies and departments in that about 97% of it's funding is through user fees for processing applications, documentation, and background checks, etc. for green cards and citizenship.
Home
www.uscis.gov
A question that comes to mind is could other Government agencies/departments also go to some fee structure paid for by those persons and businesses they interact with rather than from taxpayers in general~at-large ?
................
My point here is that while reductions in staffing and related expenses are greatly over due, there may be a few other options to look into and consider that will also reduce the tax funding burden.
Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,336
- 2,692
- 1,928
We did that during Obama, the biggest spending cut in History, remember the 'sequester'. Haven't seen any kudos from you about that one. Oh, the only time in history there was a surplus was under Clinton, but good old boy Bush blew that one out of the water. and looky here, Trump raised the debt to the tune of $8 trillion big ones, but you're not complaining when it your guy spending like a drunken sailor with a bottomless credit card.
you ******* hypocrite.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Keep whining, lefty **** moron.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
We did that during Obama, the biggest spending cut in History, remember the 'sequester'. Haven't seen any kudos from you about that one.
Kudos to Obama, who wanted to spend more, or the Republicans who stopped him?
Oh, the only time in history there was a surplus was under Clinton
That was awesome! Kudos to Gingrich!
I don't understand this at all unless you believe you just woke up.
Democrats have used this for years now to excuse massive spending.
We don't budget for the world. As you know as a fellow Republican type, we budget to pay for Government but one that is reasonable and does not send funds all over the world. That is the vision of Democrats who if you watch our budgets long enough is made worse by Democrats. Why a person asks me? Biden's budget still is operational. We have to wait until September for a true Trump Budget. Trump tires to change the past but the Congress must pull it's load first.
Since I read budgets by Clinton monthly I know the facts on your claim.
Clinton never budgeted to get a surplus. It was pure luck he got one. His budget for the year he got a surplus was for a deficit. He simply ran into good times thanks to the tech industry creating the dot com boom. The boom produced those taxes and it had nothing to do with Clinton.
That should be printed up by all posters and kept in their homes in a public place and have children read it monthly. It is the most accurate Government type post I have read on this forum.A couple of quick comments/observations here;
1) Some Agencies/Depts may not need to be totally eliminated, but could be greatly reduced in size and costs.
For Example, the EPA when formed over four decades ago did have important tasks to perform. After setting environmental standards on pollution, clean air and Water, etc. most of these issues were fixed and improved within a couple-few decades. The EPA could be greatly reduced in size to when that is just measuring compliance rather than doing what Agencies often do; find new ways to justify and/or grow existence.
Case in point from where I last worked. It was a small industrial manufacturing company located about half a mile from the waterfront of Puget Sound. Occasionally the EPA would come and inspect and test and the only issue they could find and be concerned over was bird fecal matter in the rain water runoff int the storm drains. Well, it's illegal to shoot the seagulls and we have no way to prevent them flying over and/or perching on roofs, poles, etc. around the facility. And seagulls, like most birds, want to poop a lot. So EPA would write us up and ding us with a small fine for letting the seagulls and other birds poop on our facility and then letting the rains wash that poop down the storm drains.
CATCH 22 !
EPA has also been setting compliance standards that are below nature produced emissions and 'pollution' so it's nearly impossible for business and industries to comply when Nature is allowed to exceed the standards EPA wants to impose.
So if EPA can't reduce down to a single digit percent of it's former size and budget, and apply common sense, rather than fabricate excuses and compliance standards that are unrealistic and just serving to justify it's existence, than maybe it should be gone completely. But give it a chance to reduce and gain common sense first.
2) My oldest son is employed with US Customs and Immigration Services, a subset of Homeland Security. USCIS is unique among government agencies and departments in that about 97% of it's funding is through user fees for processing applications, documentation, and background checks, etc. for green cards and citizenship.
The fees are paid by those applying for individual citizenship and also by employers who hire immigrants. My son told be the total costs varies per case but can go from about $3,000 to $12,000; but the lower range is most common. Here's the published list of fee schedule;Home
www.uscis.gov
A question that comes to mind is could other Government agencies/departments also go to some fee structure paid for by those persons and businesses they interact with rather than from taxpayers in general~at-large ?
................
My point here is that while reductions in staffing and related expenses are greatly over due, there may be a few other options to look into and consider that will also reduce the tax funding burden.
When I started Voting, being hired by the Federal Government was not a cake walk. Today they have problems getting rid of the mistakes they hire. Musk is correcting many of those mistakes.
Would George Washington ever make it if he had this system? I do not believe he could have lasted as president.
YoursTruly
Platinum Member
- Dec 21, 2019
- 13,247
- 8,872
- 1,140
- Thread starter
- #55
Since 1980, Republicans have spent more money and increased the debt ceiling more times than the democrats have.
YoursTruly
Platinum Member
- Dec 21, 2019
- 13,247
- 8,872
- 1,140
- Thread starter
- #57
The fact that the Republicans have added more to the national debt doesn't bother you, as long as you can throw in a caveat. "but democratic presidents added more debt overall."
Republicans should be no where near democrats when it comes to spending. There should be no available caveats. Trump, so far with his GOP trifecta, is still spending more than Biden.
That doesn't concern you?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
You don’t understand at all, why nations spend money on foreign aid to build alliances and trading partnerships??
Perhaps you need to go back to school and learn how “soft power” works. The Chinese certainly understand it because the moment the US pulled out of Africa and Asia, the Chinese moved in with their trade surplus dollars and started buying friendships and building infrastructure.
No, you were going along with the six-time bankrupt asshole who’s never run a successful business. A person who has no understanding of a win-win situation, where both sides get something they want and nobody gets screwed.
Most people learn from their mistakes and only go bankrupt once in their lives. It takes a special kind of stupid to do it twice much less 6 times.
Trumps financial history is that he has lost more money than any human being on Earth, living or dead. American banks still won’t loan him money.
But you’re prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. The rest of the world is a whole lot smarter than that.
You present citizens money used for other nations as a huge benefit!!!!! Give examples!!
We pour money into South Korea. Do they really need protection by us? I treat citizens of the USA very well. You treat other nations very well And tax funds are not free to Democrats.
Trump has a spotless record and never has he personally bankrupted.
Many businesses went bankrupt when democrats are president. Yet you don't hold any of them responsible. No personal bankrupts happened to Trump.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Emails show Fairfax police warned Democrat prosecutor about suspect in Hybla Valley killing- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
Most Americans view Islamic R. o. Iran as real threat to the U.S. (poll before and after operation, since 2006)- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 10
-
-
