http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/boudreaux-milton-friedman-a-centennial-appreciation-1.3869874
Outstanding work as usual, Mr. Boudreaux.
One thing I'll always be grateful to Friedman for is calling so-called public schools what they actually are, government schools. Friedman and his wife Rose were staunch advocates for school choice.
Follow posts
Friedman warned about monopoly in both the government and private sector, We now have a worse case scenario, a collaborative of both, trust me, he would not endorse this.
Much further to the extreme on "free market" was Ayn Rand, her protege - Alan Greenspan, didn't change his tune until 2009 in Congressional testimony, after the results of banking deregulation, failed tax policies and the complete failure of lessaiz-faire had become glaringly obvious.
This is his current stance on taxes & spending cuts. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfUM3QEGA
With regard to Friedman, the jabs at Bernanke from pseudo-Libertarians is stupid, Bernanke has presided over monetary policy right out of the Friedman playbook.
This is yet another in an endless line of ridiculous attempts to accost anything connected to Obama, it's old, it's tired, it's boring.
Even the "helicopter" nomenclature was originally coined by Friedman as he suggested doing exactly what Ben is doing, "throwing money from a helicopter to fight deflation if that's what it takes".
And I will never get tired of ridiculing Obama or any other leftist who thinks 1% growth translates to "it worked". Be bored all you want and pile up the non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, "blah blah blah...". I don't think you've called me a racist yet, but you have called me a Neo-Nazi which includes racism as a central tenet. Did you mean to incorporate the trite and tired racism slur into your Neo-Nazi slur? "It's the policies, stupid", and whether they come from an idiot like Obama or an idiot named McCain or an idiot named Romney I am an equal opportunity offender and critic.
We could take Congo as an example, mineral rich, booming mining industry, but with no rule of law to ensure growth for a middle class it's a a slave state, modern day feudalism.
I didn't mean to divert the topic to lessaiz-fair, it was only to point to the complete turnaround of Alan Greenspan on Lessaiz-fair in response to what Friedman might say today about bribed government and monopoly.
Friedman's idea on eliminating medical licensing would dispel that notion, he did not like the relationship between the healthcare sector and government that restricted supply to serve the agenda of the industry at the expense of the whole, he would not like the current relationships with any of the plethora of industries we now have.
Milton was not of the Lessaiz-fair school, he was a monetarist, not an Austrian, this is constantly mixed and mingled, the two are not the same.
I also firmly believe in the Constitution.
A brief review of Congress's duties might help this chat -
" The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;.... "
The real Milton Friedman
Displaying entries 1 - 20 of 30 forum posts in total
12
In the case of President Obama saying "You didn't build this" - his actual meaning is very liberal in today's lingo. My issue with that statement is who made the resources available to build the highways and pay for the courts?
Here in GA we are voting for or against a regional transportation allocated sales tax. The biggest problem it will loose is because 48th in spending on infrastructure but we are in the top 20 for gas taxes. Where is that money going?
Here in GA we are voting for or against a regional transportation allocated sales tax. The biggest problem it will loose is because 48th in spending on infrastructure but we are in the top 20 for gas taxes. Where is that money going?
Great quote from the article
"Note that Friedman would heartily agree with President Obama that no one prospers in today's economy exclusively through his or her own individual efforts. ."
It then goes on to say
" Where Friedman would disagree - and disagree strongly - is with Obama's suggestion that the main source of help that each of us gets from others is government. ..."
Friedman would have nothing to disagree with, at all.
Obama did not suggest government is the "main source" of aid to small businesses, he specifically cited "roads and bridges", stating "You didn't build that"..
It's a simple, unfortunate fact, at least when it comes to funding & grants.
Even the guy in Romney's attack ad - Jack Gilchrist, has taken over $1 million in government grants, he also derives his earnings from military contracts.
Jack Gilchrist's livelihood exists entirely from the Government, he makes his living off government contracts, he has gotten over $1 mil in grants from the government
Let's see him cut those contracts, then talk about how self sufficient he is.
Ultimately I agree with Friedman's concepts, but we need an honest & open look at why, where and how the free market is failing small businesses before we simply throw the small guy into the shark tank, Milton was NOT a proponent of monopoly.
I am 1000% certain, if he were alive today, he'd take issue with bribed control over the rule of law, regulation, foreign trade and tax policy that has cornered small business and individuals into a dependence on government.
"Note that Friedman would heartily agree with President Obama that no one prospers in today's economy exclusively through his or her own individual efforts. ."
It then goes on to say
" Where Friedman would disagree - and disagree strongly - is with Obama's suggestion that the main source of help that each of us gets from others is government. ..."
Friedman would have nothing to disagree with, at all.
Obama did not suggest government is the "main source" of aid to small businesses, he specifically cited "roads and bridges", stating "You didn't build that"..
It's a simple, unfortunate fact, at least when it comes to funding & grants.
Even the guy in Romney's attack ad - Jack Gilchrist, has taken over $1 million in government grants, he also derives his earnings from military contracts.
Jack Gilchrist's livelihood exists entirely from the Government, he makes his living off government contracts, he has gotten over $1 mil in grants from the government
Let's see him cut those contracts, then talk about how self sufficient he is.
Ultimately I agree with Friedman's concepts, but we need an honest & open look at why, where and how the free market is failing small businesses before we simply throw the small guy into the shark tank, Milton was NOT a proponent of monopoly.
I am 1000% certain, if he were alive today, he'd take issue with bribed control over the rule of law, regulation, foreign trade and tax policy that has cornered small business and individuals into a dependence on government.
It makes perfect sense that a devout leftist like Obama, free of private sector work during his entire life, would think government should take credit for the fruits of productive people. Look at the shrill rhetoric from the left when they cry that tax cuts "weren't paid for". In order to believe such nonsense, one would have to believe that government has first dibs on a man's property and that government shall decide how much a man gets to keep from his efforts. The infrastructure and other "public goods" if you want to call them that that Obama rants about are paid by the very people that he is demonizing. However, as a devout leftist, and with the leftist's belief in government's superior claim on a man's property, Obama can't make the connection that the same productive people he hates actually built that, to coin a phrase.BayouSteve said: In the case of President Obama saying "You didn't build this" - his actual meaning is very liberal in today's lingo. My issue with that statement is who made the resources available to build the highways and pay for the courts?
Here in GA we are voting for or against a regional transportation allocated sales tax. The biggest problem it will loose is because 48th in spending on infrastructure but we are in the top 20 for gas taxes. Where is that money going?
No "bribed control" prior to his death in 2006? Even if "bribed control" got going in oh, say 2000, I'd say Friedman would have had plenty to say since he was pretty much sharp as a tack until his death. Also, I'm sure Friedman wasn't a proponent of monopoly, because he knew that private sector monopolies exist only as long as they are the low cost producer. I don't worry about private sector monopolies, I worry about government monopolies. I'd bet dollars to donuts Friedman lost more sleep over government monopolies than he ever did about hysterics over anything called a monopoly in the private sector. U.S. antitrust law is incumbent protection law, just like McCain Feingold was. Hey, I'm seeing a pattern here!incubus said: Great quote from the article
"Note that Friedman would heartily agree with President Obama that no one prospers in today's economy exclusively through his or her own individual efforts. ."
It then goes on to say
" Where Friedman would disagree - and disagree strongly - is with Obama's suggestion that the main source of help that each of us gets from others is government. ..."
Friedman would have nothing to disagree with, at all.
Obama did not suggest government is the "main source" of aid to small businesses, he specifically cited "roads and bridges", stating "You didn't build that"..
It's a simple, unfortunate fact, at least when it comes to funding & grants.
Even the guy in Romney's attack ad - Jack Gilchrist, has taken over $1 million in government grants, he also derives his earnings from military contracts.
Jack Gilchrist's livelihood exists entirely from the Government, he makes his living off government contracts, he has gotten over $1 mil in grants from the government
Let's see him cut those contracts, then talk about how self sufficient he is.
Ultimately I agree with Friedman's concepts, but we need an honest & open look at why, where and how the free market is failing small businesses before we simply throw the small guy into the shark tank, Milton was NOT a proponent of monopoly.
I am 1000% certain, if he were alive today, he'd take issue with bribed control over the rule of law, regulation, foreign trade and tax policy that has cornered small business and individuals into a dependence on government.
Another excellent tribute. The following is my favorite passage, since I've been seeing so much lately about how Friedman supported more state control so we could all be "free".
"Friedman stood unfailingly and heroically with the little guy against the state. He used to marvel that the intellectual left, which claims to espouse "power to the people," so often cheers as states suppress individual rights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577558882802335216.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
"Friedman stood unfailingly and heroically with the little guy against the state. He used to marvel that the intellectual left, which claims to espouse "power to the people," so often cheers as states suppress individual rights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577558882802335216.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
I can't sway your pro-bribery stance, aside to point out a couple of real life facts (not Fox facts)...but please, feel free to ignore them as usual.Patches O'Houlihan said:
No "bribed control" prior to his death in 2006? Even if "bribed control" got going in oh, say 2000, I'd say Friedman would have had plenty to say since he was pretty much sharp as a tack until his death. Also, I'm sure Friedman wasn't a proponent of monopoly, because he knew that private sector monopolies exist only as long as they are the low cost producer. I don't worry about private sector monopolies, I worry about government monopolies. I'd bet dollars to donuts Friedman lost more sleep over government monopolies than he ever did about hysterics over anything called a monopoly in the private sector. U.S. antitrust law is incumbent protection law, just like McCain Feingold was. Hey, I'm seeing a pattern here!
Friedman warned about monopoly in both the government and private sector, We now have a worse case scenario, a collaborative of both, trust me, he would not endorse this.
Much further to the extreme on "free market" was Ayn Rand, her protege - Alan Greenspan, didn't change his tune until 2009 in Congressional testimony, after the results of banking deregulation, failed tax policies and the complete failure of lessaiz-faire had become glaringly obvious.
This is his current stance on taxes & spending cuts. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfUM3QEGA
With regard to Friedman, the jabs at Bernanke from pseudo-Libertarians is stupid, Bernanke has presided over monetary policy right out of the Friedman playbook.
This is yet another in an endless line of ridiculous attempts to accost anything connected to Obama, it's old, it's tired, it's boring.
Even the "helicopter" nomenclature was originally coined by Friedman as he suggested doing exactly what Ben is doing, "throwing money from a helicopter to fight deflation if that's what it takes".
"complete failure of laissez-faire" HA!
As far as I know, Hong Kong and Singapore are doing quite well. Those are the only places in the world that are even close to practicing laissez-faire capitalism.
As far as I know, Hong Kong and Singapore are doing quite well. Those are the only places in the world that are even close to practicing laissez-faire capitalism.
Mindful, we're in rough shape, so that means HonkKong & Singapore are doing better than us, right?
Hong Kong V SPX 16 years - (Singapore underperformed in both charts)
1 year -
Hong Kong V SPX 16 years - (Singapore underperformed in both charts)
1 year -
Hong Kong was a poverty-stricken backwater going nowhere when its government put pen to paper and made Hong Kong free. We know the rest of the story. Best part is that it blows up the assertion that economic growth is all about natural resources and that without same a nation can't prosper. Nonsense. It's all about trade and the rule of law. Hong Kong has no natural resources to speak of yet prospers, nations in Africa have abundant natural resources yet suffer.stoicathos said: "complete failure of laissez-faire" HA!
As far as I know, Hong Kong and Singapore are doing quite well. Those are the only places in the world that are even close to practicing laissez-faire capitalism.
I'm pretty sure that the Friedman quote to which you're referring, taken in proper context, is actually ridiculing money printing thieves like Printer Ben. But just the same, if it helps you rationalize your love for big government to ward off something you call "bribed control", go for it. What the hell, I'll humor you again and take what you say at face value. Friedman wasn't perfect. He said the Euro would be dead within five years, I believe. He was wrong, it's taking a bit longer.incubus said:
I can't sway your pro-bribery stance, aside to point out a couple of real life facts (not Fox facts)...but please, feel free to ignore them as usual.Patches O'Houlihan said:
No "bribed control" prior to his death in 2006? Even if "bribed control" got going in oh, say 2000, I'd say Friedman would have had plenty to say since he was pretty much sharp as a tack until his death. Also, I'm sure Friedman wasn't a proponent of monopoly, because he knew that private sector monopolies exist only as long as they are the low cost producer. I don't worry about private sector monopolies, I worry about government monopolies. I'd bet dollars to donuts Friedman lost more sleep over government monopolies than he ever did about hysterics over anything called a monopoly in the private sector. U.S. antitrust law is incumbent protection law, just like McCain Feingold was. Hey, I'm seeing a pattern here!
Friedman warned about monopoly in both the government and private sector, We now have a worse case scenario, a collaborative of both, trust me, he would not endorse this.
Much further to the extreme on "free market" was Ayn Rand, her protege - Alan Greenspan, didn't change his tune until 2009 in Congressional testimony, after the results of banking deregulation, failed tax policies and the complete failure of lessaiz-faire had become glaringly obvious.
This is his current stance on taxes & spending cuts. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfUM3QEGA
With regard to Friedman, the jabs at Bernanke from pseudo-Libertarians is stupid, Bernanke has presided over monetary policy right out of the Friedman playbook.
This is yet another in an endless line of ridiculous attempts to accost anything connected to Obama, it's old, it's tired, it's boring.
Even the "helicopter" nomenclature was originally coined by Friedman as he suggested doing exactly what Ben is doing, "throwing money from a helicopter to fight deflation if that's what it takes".
And I will never get tired of ridiculing Obama or any other leftist who thinks 1% growth translates to "it worked". Be bored all you want and pile up the non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, "blah blah blah...". I don't think you've called me a racist yet, but you have called me a Neo-Nazi which includes racism as a central tenet. Did you mean to incorporate the trite and tired racism slur into your Neo-Nazi slur? "It's the policies, stupid", and whether they come from an idiot like Obama or an idiot named McCain or an idiot named Romney I am an equal opportunity offender and critic.
Though I disagree, a country with greater natural resources has an advantage, you have a point, rule of law is absolutely essential.Patches O'Houlihan said:
Hong Kong was a poverty-stricken backwater going nowhere when its government put pen to paper and made Hong Kong free. We know the rest of the story. Best part is that it blows up the assertion that economic growth is all about natural resources and that without same a nation can't prosper. Nonsense. It's all about trade and the rule of law. Hong Kong has no natural resources to speak of yet prospers, nations in Africa have abundant natural resources yet suffer.
We could take Congo as an example, mineral rich, booming mining industry, but with no rule of law to ensure growth for a middle class it's a a slave state, modern day feudalism.
I didn't mean to divert the topic to lessaiz-fair, it was only to point to the complete turnaround of Alan Greenspan on Lessaiz-fair in response to what Friedman might say today about bribed government and monopoly.
Friedman's idea on eliminating medical licensing would dispel that notion, he did not like the relationship between the healthcare sector and government that restricted supply to serve the agenda of the industry at the expense of the whole, he would not like the current relationships with any of the plethora of industries we now have.
Milton was not of the Lessaiz-fair school, he was a monetarist, not an Austrian, this is constantly mixed and mingled, the two are not the same.
"The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rule of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on."
" We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work. "
Two highly relevant quotes from uncle Milty.
The second is often construed with entitlement at the bottom, with no consideration given to entitlements at the top, on that, it looks like Romney may have paid ZERO taxes for a majority of the last decade...I call that an entitlement.
Two highly relevant quotes from uncle Milty.
The second is often construed with entitlement at the bottom, with no consideration given to entitlements at the top, on that, it looks like Romney may have paid ZERO taxes for a majority of the last decade...I call that an entitlement.
I for one have never said government doesn't have a role. Quite the contrary. That said, trying to educate worshipers at the altar of big government on the huge qualitative difference between limited government and no government (aka anarchy) is generally fruitless. I understand, it's much easier to scream "you want to put Granny on the street!" than it is to debate whether Granny is best taken care of by government through force or free people by choice. Of course that's just one example, it extends to every facet of our lives. Suffice to say government has a role, as Friedman said, in those situations where government is the best option. Namely, government needs to solve the problems that can only be solved by the collective. A good example: The SARS outbreak in Asia. Getting a disease from touching a doorknob does not have a good solution from the private sector. Government's power is appropriate. Other good examples: Military, police, roads (to a certain extent). Bad examples: The "obesity epidemic". Education, space travel, just look at any "Department of" and if it doesn't more or less relate to the common defense trash it. Incubus just to point out none of this is personal, I get screamed at by purported "conservatives" or maybe they call themselves "right libertarians" who think I'm a heathen for saying no more to the full employment plan for engineers boondoggle called NASA.
As for Friedman's second statement, that's common sense to any productive person living today.
In summary, both of the quotes you presented, for me anyway, fall firmly into the "tell me something I don't know" category. And that's OK. In the meantime, I'll keep chuckling when people scream at me to "move to Somalia, that's your dream world!". I know when someone goes there, I'm staring at a moocher.
As for Friedman's second statement, that's common sense to any productive person living today.
In summary, both of the quotes you presented, for me anyway, fall firmly into the "tell me something I don't know" category. And that's OK. In the meantime, I'll keep chuckling when people scream at me to "move to Somalia, that's your dream world!". I know when someone goes there, I'm staring at a moocher.
Natural resources do in fact help, they help a lot, but in no way is a country without natural resources to speak of doomed from a prosperity standpoint. The only way to pay for imports is to export.incubus said:
Though I disagree, a country with greater natural resources has an advantage, you have a point, rule of law is absolutely essential.Patches O'Houlihan said:
Hong Kong was a poverty-stricken backwater going nowhere when its government put pen to paper and made Hong Kong free. We know the rest of the story. Best part is that it blows up the assertion that economic growth is all about natural resources and that without same a nation can't prosper. Nonsense. It's all about trade and the rule of law. Hong Kong has no natural resources to speak of yet prospers, nations in Africa have abundant natural resources yet suffer.
We could take Congo as an example, mineral rich, booming mining industry, but with no rule of law to ensure growth for a middle class it's a a slave state, modern day feudalism.
I didn't mean to divert the topic to lessaiz-fair, it was only to point to the complete turnaround of Alan Greenspan on Lessaiz-fair in response to what Friedman might say today about bribed government and monopoly.
Friedman's idea on eliminating medical licensing would dispel that notion, he did not like the relationship between the healthcare sector and government that restricted supply to serve the agenda of the industry at the expense of the whole, he would not like the current relationships with any of the plethora of industries we now have.
Milton was not of the Lessaiz-fair school, he was a monetarist, not an Austrian, this is constantly mixed and mingled, the two are not the same.
Patchy, I wasn't specifically addressing you per se, more so to illustrate that Friedman was not an Austrian.
There's an incredible amount of misinterpretation going on, to where I amount to being a "Liberal" in the eyes of someone who's perceptions are being groomed by extremism merely for mentioning the words "tax" or "government".
It's insane, even the architect of this system, Alan Greenspan has folded.
In perspective, since 1980, healthcare costs have increased 600%, tuition has increased 900% and wages have fallen as a percent of GDP per household, not even keeping with inflation.
It's no coincidence that at the same time both government and consumer debt has soared to a now unsustainable level.
This is consumer debt from the FED -
In short, our bribed political system has spent 4 decades creating a system of privatized profit that's paid with taxpayer & consumer debt.
The solution is not to try to exact payment from those who have lost out on the deal, remember, they're broke & indebted.
The Paul Ryan plan calculated it would take 75 years to re-balance the budget, meanwhile the whole time it would crush consumption and deplete the middle class to afford further lowered taxes for the wealthiest, who's wealth levels have soared in tandem with consumer & government debt.
Milty would not agree with this, at the time he proposed the flat tax, top marginal rates were 90%, his rationale was that those income levels were paying nowhere near those rates, and that a flat tax without loopholes would make it more transparent while maintaining revenue levels of that time.
That said, he would also disagree with the means to which wealth disparity has been attained, absolutely nothing to do with any real free market forces, everything to do with bribed monopoly.
Simply getting government out of the way, without undoing this mess, would be absolutely catastrophic.
There's an incredible amount of misinterpretation going on, to where I amount to being a "Liberal" in the eyes of someone who's perceptions are being groomed by extremism merely for mentioning the words "tax" or "government".
It's insane, even the architect of this system, Alan Greenspan has folded.
In perspective, since 1980, healthcare costs have increased 600%, tuition has increased 900% and wages have fallen as a percent of GDP per household, not even keeping with inflation.
It's no coincidence that at the same time both government and consumer debt has soared to a now unsustainable level.
This is consumer debt from the FED -
In short, our bribed political system has spent 4 decades creating a system of privatized profit that's paid with taxpayer & consumer debt.
The solution is not to try to exact payment from those who have lost out on the deal, remember, they're broke & indebted.
The Paul Ryan plan calculated it would take 75 years to re-balance the budget, meanwhile the whole time it would crush consumption and deplete the middle class to afford further lowered taxes for the wealthiest, who's wealth levels have soared in tandem with consumer & government debt.
Milty would not agree with this, at the time he proposed the flat tax, top marginal rates were 90%, his rationale was that those income levels were paying nowhere near those rates, and that a flat tax without loopholes would make it more transparent while maintaining revenue levels of that time.
That said, he would also disagree with the means to which wealth disparity has been attained, absolutely nothing to do with any real free market forces, everything to do with bribed monopoly.
Simply getting government out of the way, without undoing this mess, would be absolutely catastrophic.
I'm for limited government, constitutional government, a government where government fulfills its limited responsibilities and nothing more. I have an incredible faith in the human spirit, and the compassion of free, prosperous people. I think the government we have now kills the human spirit and leads to misery. I don't think the U.S. has any obligation to get involved in any and all dust ups in faraway lands, and that it need get involved only in conflicts that pose an imminent threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests. I don't think anointed bureaucrats tucked away in government buildings have a clue with respect to what's best for individuals. I don't think the U.S. needs to blast people off into space in the pursuit of one or more "national greatness" objectives. I think rational markets allocate precious economic resources better than government and before any anointed bureaucrat could even hope to understand the issue. I could go on a lot further, but this hits the biggest points.
In short, if any or all of the above has anyone believing I'm an extremist, then by all means let me remove all doubt. I am a proud extremist. And a sad extremist, because all I want is what the U.S. is supposed to be. And I see how much better it could be.
In short, if any or all of the above has anyone believing I'm an extremist, then by all means let me remove all doubt. I am a proud extremist. And a sad extremist, because all I want is what the U.S. is supposed to be. And I see how much better it could be.
I thought I heard you were a fascist? Hmm, I must be confused....Patches O'Houlihan said: I am a proud extremist.
I also firmly believe in the Constitution.
A brief review of Congress's duties might help this chat -
" The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;.... "
I am very happy that you posted that inc. To me, that is a very limited role in what happens in this country. The problem with me is the word welfare and how it is defined. With most democrats and all liberals this means to stuff as many people in this category called poor so that they can take care of them. On the other hand, I am rather outraged that our congress has chosen to create a tax code that favors the very wealthy or at least makes it look that way, and as this might surprise you but I am a huge supporter of the fair tax. Many liberals don't think it would benefit their constituency or even possibly that this plan would make things simple, transparent, and more importantly truly benefit that class. The current tax system is all bs.
So therefore many of us are looking at removing the people in congress who do not want to decrease the governments role in our lives. Although I am not from CA. and do not know what circumstances exist there, that form of socialism is what scares the hell out of me. To give you a sample of all the liberals that are in congress who couldn't care less about the productive people in this country take a look at this guys website: http://georgemiller.house.gov/ Should I mention that their 3rd city just went belly up with their finances.
There is a name for people who acted like this in New Orleans at the turn of the previous century. That is why they have to be defeated.
So therefore many of us are looking at removing the people in congress who do not want to decrease the governments role in our lives. Although I am not from CA. and do not know what circumstances exist there, that form of socialism is what scares the hell out of me. To give you a sample of all the liberals that are in congress who couldn't care less about the productive people in this country take a look at this guys website: http://georgemiller.house.gov/ Should I mention that their 3rd city just went belly up with their finances.
There is a name for people who acted like this in New Orleans at the turn of the previous century. That is why they have to be defeated.
Displaying entries 1 - 20 of 30 forum posts in total
12
You must Log In to post to this forum.
Not a member? Register Now to …
- See what other traders are doing
- Make your own trades public
- Share your thoughts on a trade
- Join or start a group
- Connect with like-minded traders
