Milton Friedman

What Milton Friedman Really Said About Immigration and Welfare

Restrictionists have distorted and weaponized the late, great economist's views

|

Crops are rotting in the fields. Developers can't find workers to hang dry wall. Summer tourist hotspots (such as Michigan's Mackinac Island) are unable to fully function because they can't find enough seasonal help. Help wanted signs are proliferating everywhere. Yet one of the biggest barriers to alleviating America's labor scarcity and enacting humane, rational, and pro-growth immigration reform is a statement by the late, great, free market economist Milton Friedman that "free immigration" was incompatible with the welfare state.

"Free" immigration might be as distant a goal for mankind as flying at the speed of light and no one is talking about it. Yet Friedman's vague and general statement has become a potent weapon in the arsenal of restricitonists to thwart any loosening of America's insanely restrictive immigration laws. Worse, Friedman's comment has become a way for justifying Trump's draconian immigration crackdown.

But all of this is a terrible misuse of Friedman's real views on immigration and welfare. If he were still alive, I note in my column at The Week, he would denounce Trump's immigration policies. He'd never be on the restrictionist side.

Go here to read the piece.

NEXT: Marijuana Movement Gets New Anti-Hero in Oklahoma Health Agency Hoaxer Out to Stop Ban on Smokeable Weed: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No one is talking about “free” immigration except every specific restriction on immigration gets characterized as an affront to freedom. If no one is talking about it, then it because to openly support such a thing is incredibly unpopular. Dalmia characterizes the USA immigration policy as “insane” despite it being one of the least restrictive in the world.

    And then there is the case of Germany, which has more or less proved the critics of open borders policy correct in their scepticism about such schemes.

    1. What color is the sky on your planet?

      1. I can assure you it is not plaid like where Dalmia resides.

    2. From Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland:

      * Should it be legal for people to travel or move into and out of the
      U.S. without limitation?

      Liberal: We should give more help to people trying to escape poverty and
      political oppression so they can to come to America, but not without
      limitation because they take jobs from Americans.
      Conservative: No. We have too many immigrants already. Everyone will
      want to come to America. They increase welfare costs, take our jobs,
      increase crime and disease, and refuse to learn English.
      Libertarian: Yes. All individuals have the same rights, regardless of where
      they were born or where they live now. Anyone willing to take responsibility
      for himself or herself has the right to travel and seek opportunity, including
      across international borders. America has always benefitted from immigrants
      who arrive with nothing, work hard, start businesses, become
      educated and improve America’s economy.

      1. …and if they DO NOT take responsibility for themselves? If they become basic wards of the state?

        1. Then the problem is the state having power to take on wards.

          1. Well, let’s fix that problem first… THEN we can talk about open borders 🙂

      2. Talk about strawmen…. I also note than none of the three positions as described actually comport with reality.

  2. So the libertarian response to allowing the market to determine who and what they should be paid to hang drywall is to alter the market using government enforcement.

    OK.

    1. Mackinac Island is a hotspot because cars are banned, which means they need people to clean horse manure off the streets and peddle white tourists around in peddle carts and rickshaws. Turns out not even immigrants living in places like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Detroit want to work for white tourists on a tiny island with no cars in the hot sun picking up horse shit. Shikha’s magnanimous solution to the issue is to hand out work visas so the island can employ more brown-skinned coachmen and buggy whip makers.

      1. …she totally isn’t advocating slavery…

    2. Quite the opposite. The response is to remove barriers for employers to interact freely with potential employees, whether native or immigrant.

      The distortion is in the government regulations that already exist… ie immigration control; a control on the supply of labor.

  3. Uncage those babies and put them to work.

  4. “Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for Social Security, they don’t qualify for all the other myriads of benefits,” he pointed out. “They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take, they provide employers with workers of a kind they cannot get.”

    Largely bullshit. They get tons of welfare at the state and local level. And they take those jobs only because they’re priced below what all levels of government combined are willing to hand out to natives for doing nothing.

    But it is refreshing to hear an admission that the main reason to support illegals is to get cheap labor that doesn’t talk back.

    But many economists believe that more immigration is essential to extend the life of old age entitlement programs given that these are pay-as-you-go systems that will become much harder to sustain if America’s already plummeting worker-to-retiree ratio (due to declining fertility and aging populations) is allowed to drop any further.

    And to prop up collectivist pyramid schemes.

    1. Exactly. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

      So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

      1. The cost of the welfare state is north of $1 trillion per year.
        Even according to the biased statistics of outfits like CIS, undocumented immigrants cost taxpayers around $100 billion per year. And that figure includes BOTH welfare AND the cost of immigration enforcement.

        So a reasonable estimate is that welfare from undocumented immigrants constitute somewhere between 5-10% of the total cost of the welfare state. Going apeshit nuts over undocumented immigrants consuming welfare, when it is AT MOST 10% of the problem, is simply irrational.

        An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school.

        Even assuming your figure is correct, that is the cost for EVERY CHILD in public school, not just the undocumented ones. What are you doing to prevent the MUCH LARGER expense of native-born children consuming the ‘welfare’ of public school? Why are you going after the costs borne by the undocumented immigrants which are such a comparatively small part of the problem?

        1. “Going apeshit nuts over undocumented immigrants consuming welfare, when it is AT MOST 10% of the problem, is simply irrational.”

          Two problems with this.

          It’s dishonest to characterize the discussion as “going apeshit nuts”

          So, the more honest statement would be something like “discussing serious, expensive, possibly unnecessary border protection schemes over 10% is simply irrational”

          Which of course it isn’t. 10% is a huge number, your inexperience with accounting aside, so without mischaracterizing the people involved, the decision to consider illegal immigrant benefits is highly rational.

          It is only by vilifying your opponents and calling their behavior nuts that you can arrive at a different conclusion, which is why you do so.

          1. It’s dishonest to characterize the discussion as “going apeshit nuts”

            I’m sorry, did you miss the 2016 electoral campaign? The entire thing was centered around scapegoating foreigners in one way or another. Yes, the political right has elevated the ‘problem’ of undocumented immigrants far beyond its rational effects.

            If you view the welfare state itself as the problem, then devoting extraordinary energy to at most 5-10% of the problem, while largely ignoring the rest of it, isn’t rational.

            1. “I’m sorry, did you miss the 2016 electoral campaign?”

              No.

              “The entire thing was centered around scapegoating foreigners in one way or another”

              Ok you think scapegoating is “going apeshit nuts”

              “Yes, the political right has elevated the ‘problem’ of undocumented immigrants far beyond its rational effects.”

              Ok so you think that is “going apeshit nuts”

              In other words, you did exactly what I said, and mischaracterized your opponents.

              “If you view the welfare state itself as the problem, then devoting extraordinary energy to at most 5-10% of the problem, while largely ignoring the rest of it, isn’t rational.”

              It is if your ouput is less than that 5-10%. By definition.

              1. It is not a mischaracterization to state that the immigration restrictionists on the right have elevated the problem of undocumented immigrants consuming welfare to a level far out of proportion to its rational effects. “Going apeshit nuts” is a colloquial way to state the same thing.

                1. “”Going apeshit nuts” is a colloquial way to state the same thing.”

                  And I’m saying it isn’t, and it’s a gross mischaracterization.

            2. As opposed to going apeshit over defense spending? Or going apeshit when the gop didn’t fully repeal obamacare and offered only some of the cuts? BUT THEY PROMISED!!!!

              Gotta love that fickle purity.

          2. Two problems with this.

            Don’t argue. Just mock.

            As poorly written and reasoned as Shikha’s article is, chemjeff is apparently determined to undercut her. The article is literally about immigration and the welfare state and he starts off chastising… someone, for ignoring 90% of the welfare state in order to focus on a marginal increase in the other 10%.

            I have a feeling you could poke him in the eye right now and he wouldn’t blink.

        2. Going apeshit nuts over undocumented immigrants consuming welfare, when it is AT MOST 10% of the problem, is simply irrational.

          Johnny Cab was far more entertaining.

      2. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

        This comment reveals the real reason to go apeshit nuts over welfare consumed by undocumented immigrants. It is not because they are opposed to the welfare state in principle. It is because they want to *preserve* the welfare state for those who *deserve it*, namely, citizens.

        Immigration restrictionism will make it HARDER to tear down the welfare state not, easier.

        1. That is some exceptionally stupid reasoning when immigrants overwhelming vote to increase the welfare state.

          1. The immigrants who might vote to increase the welfare state are far outnumbered by the native-born citizens who ALSO vote to increase the welfare state.

            1. Do you not realize what you did there? If welfare is a problem, the answer isn’t bring more welfare recipients in Jeff.

              1. Don’t slow jeff down now.

                Jeff admits that illegals want more welfare. But, he argues, citizens also want more welfare. So the Libertarian solution is to bring in MORE people who want more welfare. That will, surely, end welfare as we know it.

                1. Jeff admits that illegals want more welfare.

                  Of course they do, just like native-born citizens want more welfare. They aren’t any more inherently predisposed to wanting welfare than anyone else who is similarly situated.

                  The correct solution, when it comes to reducing the welfare state, is to go after where the problem REALLY IS. Spending all your energy on tackling at best 5-10% of the problem isn’t very productive, is it? But it does make you look like a bunch of xenophobic retards whose ‘concern’ for the ever-expanding welfare state only extends to those undocumented immigrants who may receive it.

                  1. How do you end welfare when the immigrant hordes and American welfare queens/kings become the majority and never end welfare?

                    1. sigh) How are “welfare kings” any different than your “entitlement” to suck at the gummint teat?

                      loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

                      My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

                      I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

                      TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if lines HIS pocket!

                      Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG)

                      WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE?

                      BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN … with MORE :crushing debt … but HE is not selfish as shit!!! Trolling for goobers.

                      What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES federal debt steals from our future … his own children? Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

                      HED CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.”

                      The NEW Entitlement Mentality. The Alt-Right

                      Is your mother “selfish as shtit” too? Do they know how you talk? about them?

                      Left – Right = Zero

                      (Will this trigger him again?)

            2. And yet can prove to be the deciding margin. Are you seriously this dense?

        2. chemjeff radical individualist|7.19.18 @ 11:00AM|#
          … the real reason to go apeshit nuts over welfare consumed by undocumented immigrants. It is not because they are opposed to the welfare state in principle. It is because they want to *preserve* the welfare state for those who *deserve it*, namely, citizens.

          Bingi! More slurping for themselves!!. NOBODY trolls immigranfs more than loveconstitution(sic)1789. He calls his own father “selfish as shit” for resisting cuts to Social Security and Medicare with the current “crushing debt.” His own father.

          Unless, the “crushing debt” fills HIS pocket! His FATHER is “selfish as shit” … but HE is entitled to slurp the gummint teat.

          Imagine being his father.

          Left- Right = Zero

          1. Michael Hihn lays out the new Libertarian platform yet again. Social Security and Medicare are totally legitimate! Tax cuts are government largess, you filthy parasite! That money’s not yours! Spending doesn’t create debt, lack of revenue does! That cloud looks racist, I’m gonna shake my stick at it!

            1. (posted in defense for MORE aggression … by PROVEN cyber-bully.)

              How many agree with Procyon Rotor? (#2 below)

              1) Progtards borrow TRILLIONS for free stuff … because debt is s FREE MONEY
              2) Conservatards borrow TRILLIONS for free tax cuts … because debt is s FREE MONEY
              BOTH

              Michael Hihn lays out the new Libertarian platform yet again.

              Libertarians have ALWAYS known … what ENRAGES goobers
              1) Only SPENDING cuts reduce government.
              2) Tax cuts alone ADD TO OUR CRUSHING DEBT (gasp)

              ****Now the pathetic LIES. Compare with PROOF (at my link)

              Social Security and Medicare are totally legitimate!

              LIAR!
              FACT: It’s CRAZY to call your own father “selfish as shit” for resisting cuts in his benefits, BECAUSE of “our crushing debt,” But MORE crushing debt is okay …ONLY if it lines HIS pockets

              Tax cuts are government largess, you filthy parasite! That money’s not yours!

              (snort) It’s NOT yours!!! Repeat:
              “What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES federal debt steals from our future … his own children? Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers”
              What kind? Procyon.

              Spending doesn’t create debt, lack of revenue does!

              They BOTH do, Which is MY pont, And YOU disagree!!
              (SNEER)

              Cyber-bully is stalking me .. non-stop unprovoked assaults … but rarely THIS insane

      3. An illegal paying rent is also paying the property taxes to fund that education.

        An illegal man who is paying rent while sending his money back to Mexico is paying those taxes without consuming the education.

        If it weren’t for Mexican teenaged girls, Texas would not have a positive birth rate (citation needed). That doesn’t seem sustainable.

        1. If you’re going to make the argument that they pay their way, make the argument and post the numbers from your sources.

          1. If you’re going to make the argument that they pay their way, make the argument and post the numbers from your sources.

            HUH?
            Do illegals pay property taxes? Case closed.

            He UNDERESTIMATES birth rates, The entire country has had a negative birth rate for nearly 10 years.
            Without immigration, our population would be declining. Why should you care?
            BIG increases in FICA taxes .. on YOUR children and/or grandchildren … to pay YOUR retirement benefits! (Ooops)

            Breitbart won’t tell you that. Fox won’t tell you that.
            This libertarian just did

        2. An illegal paying rent is also increasing the price of rent in the area thus distorting the market.
          Boom

          1. An illegal paying rent is also increasing the price of rent in the area thus distorting the market.
            Boom

            While paying property taxes. KABOOM
            Sales taxes, FLASH
            FICA taxes, BOING
            SUBSIDIZING your Social Security and Medicare (or your parents) POW

            Better to have the landlord lose money … which reduces his consumption in that same market … reducing sales taxes in that jurisdiction … .and income taxes in that jurisdiction … reducing his federal income taxes, this increasing.our debt and interest costs. Seriously?

            Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy details the consequences of counting only the obvious costs..
            A fallacy understood by most free marketers

      4. So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

        Does this account for lost tax revenue even if the illegal themselves pays no property, income, FICA or sales tax someone is because of their efforts. Just wondering if the loss of 190,000 people who may be working and improving this country (granted it may not be a net positive) could be a drag on the economy and cause tax revenues to fall greater then the savings on the cost side?

        1. Delicious! Great application of Bastiat!

        2. Sure, they’re producing GDP… But so does a peasant farmer in India.

          The thing is they don’t generally earn enough to pay for their use of socialized costs. They lower the average per capita income in the country, which is really what makes a 1st world country 1st world. All of this is also true for native born poor… The thing is we’re stuck with them, why import more poverty?

          Thing is we’re not “stuck with” allowing in any schlep off the street. This is AMERICA. We could let in nothing but PHDs and we could probably fill our full quota of 1 million a year just with hyper high productivity people. They are all but guaranteed to more than pay their way. As a matter of fact they will likely LESSEN the burden on native born Americans, instead of add to it.

          We already have low labor force participation rates, and teenagers can’t hardly even get jobs when they want them anymore because they’re competing with adults. That’s how shit the labor market is. We don’t need more low skill people, we just need to nudge slackers and teenagers back into the work force.

    2. Largely bullshit. They get tons of welfare at the state and local level.

      But it was probably a lot less bullshit in 1980 or whenever Friedman made his comments.

  5. If immigration is incompatible with the welfare state, then get rid of the welfare state! Duh.

    1. This is the proper response.

      1. Great, so how about we focus on that and come back to immigration when it’s done? But you’re super serial and will get around to welfare reform real soon now. Promise.

        1. They don’t get welfare.
          And they do pay taxes.

          1. Everybody gets welfare Hihn!

            Schools, roads, everything is socialized in terms of costs. I pay for the roads for people that world at McDonalds because they don’t make enough money to cover their share. Illegal immigrants overwhelmingly fall into the lowest income tiers. Every extra one that is here is taking cash right out of every middle class on up persons wallet.

    2. This is the proper response.

    3. 100% correct, but do you notice that Reason never advocates getting rid of the welfare state? Nowadays, if anything they argue that it should be EXPANDED!

  6. If deporting Shikha is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

    1. Well she’s not an American so why not deport her? She sure as hell doesn’t care about this country. She has not loyalty to her own shithole country so now she’s here trying to turn the USA into a shithole country. It never stops with these people.

  7. “Crops are rotting in the fields. Developers can’t find workers to hang dry wall.”

    And yet wages remain stagnant even as the economy is heating up. If only there was some market solution to respond to a lack of supply.

    1. Raise wages to attract employees? That’s just crazy talk!

      1. “Libertarians” only believe in supply and demand in terms of cost of goods…never in cost of labor. Workers do not warrant higher wages when jobs cannot be filled at their current salary level. We just need to bring in more people to work cheaper.

        1. Well, it says up above that libertarians believe everyone in the world has the right to move to any nation they wish. I’m sure that fantasy will come true any… day… now.

    2. “Crops are rotting in the fields. Developers can’t find workers to hang dry wall.”

      Wasn’t unhung drywall plague No. 3? Somewhere between fields lying fallow and rivers turning to blood, right? Fields lying fallow, drywall unhung, rivers turning to blood, tourists unable to get fresh hand towels, frogs, locusts, fiery rain, and then the death of first-born sons… right?

    3. The problem appears to be one of a “bubble” economy. People have already stretched themselves to buy their mcmansions. They aren’t going to pay 10% more.

      So, everyone would have to come to grips with buying a smaller house at the new equilibrium.

      We can’t let that happen!

    4. Clearly the only possible problem here is the lack of desperate foreigners to work under the table. Let’s not talk about labor regulations and a welfare state rendering an entire class of natives unemployable.

    5. This. Being in favor of free markets doesn’t mean you never recognize that some employers are cheap jerks

  8. Take a look at this table very carefully. It is a little old, but I doubt the figures have substantially changed.

    There is not much of a constituency among both the R’s and the D’s for ending the welfare state.

    Welfare consumed by undocumented immigrants became an issue not because those who were most angry by it were opposed to welfare in principle. Instead they wanted to preserve the welfare state for those who were “worthy”.

    1. And even less of a constituency amongst libertarians.

      1. REAL libertarians promote Friedman’s Negative Income Tax to replace ALL welfare. (NOT the Universal Basic Income)

        The problem is — marginal tax rates (the percentage decline in benefits). High rates are punitive to welfare recipients, like everyone else. How much does “take-home” pay decrease as one EARNs more?

        Welfare recipients face marginal tax rates as high as 100%. (No phase-out,)
        For those that phase out, each declines at a different rate. Assume you have 3 means-tested benefits. The “marginal rate” ranges from 10-25% of earned income (in lower benefits). Yeah,EXACTLY like a 25% tax rate to REAL poverty.

        What will the rate be, if you increase your income by $35 a week? Difficult to figure. Most readers could not do it. And the “blended” rate changes with each dollar of income. The NIT repeals EVERY program … and its bureaucracy .. and gives the aid as cash. As EARNED income begins and grows. the “marginal rate” (benefit reduction) would be (say) the same as the lowest actual TAX rate on earned income – 10% or less. That $35 per week, nets $31.50

        SOME anti-gummint goobers screech like banshees. But if high marginal tax rates are a disincentve to them (or to Bill Gates) ….what about a welfare mom with 3 kids and NO job income?

        Eventually privatize. Like Medicaid, Americans are willing to pay for the support, and they’ve always done so. But we need reforms to reduce the dollars needed.

    2. Ah, the old appeal to motive fallacy.

    3. Take a look at this table very carefully.

      8+21-6-9-23+11+4+4 = 10, Republicans favor cutting spending by 10% more (whatever that means exactly). If you take out Foreign Aid (which neither natives nor immigrants, legal or otherwise receive), homeland security, and defense spending (both of which are also distinct from welfare for a whole host of not-dissimilar reasons) the difference becomes 34% more favorable on the side of Republicans.

      Duly noted.

      1. Talk about lying with numbers. The areas of spending that Republicans most favor cutting are drops in the budget bucket, the big area of spending that Republicans oppose cutting is gigantic (defense), and the rest are about a wash.

        1. Talk about lying with numbers.

          They’re your numbers! Unlike yourself, I’ve said absolutely nothing the table doesn’t say. If all the numbers and all the differences are just a wash, why even link to the table at all? I think you just want the table to say something it doesn’t clearly or definitively say.

  9. loosening of America’s insanely restrictive immigration laws.

    What country has less restrictive immigration laws?

    I’d like a list of this.

    1. I’m no export but I *think* Canada may have looser laws. I know a guy who got into Canada when the US wouldn’t take him back. I suspect his problem was having no relatives here nor any desire to pick strawberries or hang sheetrock.

      1. Canada’s immigration laws are much more strict (I hear)

        1. Canada’s are much easier. I worked there in the 1970s. I just crossed the border and moved in, It was several weeks later, .after my home and job were stabilized, that I applied for resident status. Before that, I was essentially legal anyhow. But couldnt vote or get a drivers license. Yes, Canada, like most other countries, allows non-citizens to vote — typically on local issues only, and.or direct taxes (like on property) “No taxation without representation!”

          They have tightened up, but looked trivial to me. They probably still give preference to other British Commonwealth countries. (Elizabeth is their queen)

          1. They have essentially 2 systems that allow people in.

            Their immigration system, which leans heavily towards skilled workers, but as I understand it they’ll basically let in as many as apply. This is why many people from the USA or Europe can get in easily, THEY HAVE SKILLS. The other is their insane asylum policy which lets in a ton of people from war torn countries etc.

            Their immigration system is good… Their asylum policies have some issues.

    2. Somalia? (Just guessing, don’t actually know.)

    3. I think its hard to quantify, but since we’re handing out H1Bs via a lottery, I think we’ve crossed over to “insane” pretty easily, even if there are other insane ones out there two.

      1. I think its hard to quantify… I think we’ve crossed over to “insane” pretty easily

        “It’s hard for me to be rational, but I’m pretty sure you’re the one who’s crazy!”

        1. “Its really hard for me to read or quote someone’s entire post, or even get their point, so instead I’ll misquote them and make sick burn out of it, that in fact doesn’t make a lick of sense”

  10. Shecky Dullmia schooling Milton Friedman. I swear, Reason seems intent on preventing any Libertarian Party candidate from ever being elected to any office, anywhere…..ever.

    1. Because Reason isn’t run by real libertarians any longer. The very few real libertarians who still occasionally get featured here, such as John Stossel, now get a disclaimer put on their material that their views “don’t necessarily” represent the views of Reason.

      1. Yep. Reason is mostly libertarian-ish conservatards, like Rand Pau, at the top. The “Independents” they claim are the future, would be repelled by the right-wing tribalism.

    2. Why would Lefties that work at Reason want Libertarians to beat Democrats?

      Its bad enough for the LINOs at Reason that Republicans are kicking Democrat ass.

      1. You attack EVERYONE as a PARTISAN HACK … but YOU ate ENTITLED to slurp the gummint teat!
        Trumpsters Uber Alles

        loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

        My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

        I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

        TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if lines HIS pocket!

        Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG)

        WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE?

        BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN … with MORE :crushing debt … but HE is not selfish as shit!!! Trolling for goobers.

        What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES federal debt steals from our future … his own children? Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

        HED CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.”

        The NEW Entitlement Mentality. The Alt-Right

        Is your Mom “selfish as shit,” too? Do they know how you talk?

        Left – Right = Zero

        (Will this trigger him again?)

  11. But all of this is a terrible misuse of Friedman’s real views on immigration and welfare. If he were still alive, I note in my column at The Week, he would denounce Trump’s immigration policies. He’d never be on the restrictionist side.

    You’re right – and so was he. End the welfare state and 90% of the legitimate reasons to oppose open immigration lose their foundation.

    1. True, but of course the welfare state isn’t going anywhere.

      So…now what ?

      She makes the case that illegal immigrants are a net $$ contributor. Haven’t seen that refuted, though I am skeptical.

      It seems like the best thing is some variation on the Guest Worker program. Let them in to work and pay taxes, and then return home. One of the things is many/most of these folks don’t want to be US citizens, but we make it so damn hard to go back and forth that they settle here, have kids etc. If we just let them come in and work, and go home, perhaps we’d have a lot fewer here soaking up benefits. It would eliminate the need for a wall and all the costs that go with it, not to mention people trying to cross deserts etc. Meanwhile, with a Guest Worker card, they’d be documented, and all US laws would apply.

      1. This would be a terrific step in the right direction.

      2. True, but of course the welfare state isn’t going anywhere.

        So then you agree that 90% of the reasons to oppose open immigration are legitimate and not going anywhere?

        1. Did you read the rest of my post ? It doesn’t look like it.

          No. It means let’s look at what we should do given that idealistic perfection ain’t gonna happen. You know, like every other fucking thing in life.

          1. Simple solution to simple problem. Build the wall. Issue green cards. Surprised Trump isn’t a shoo in for a Nobel.

            1. I’d say that what I proposed is even simpler.

      3. I’ve been supportive of that.

        Open up for legal immigration and the illegal goes to a trickle and you don’t need the wall.

      4. True, but of course the welfare state isn’t going anywhere.

        Not by today’s crop of faux “fiscal conservatives.”

    2. Friedman did not promote ending the welfare state, and he wasn’t crazy enough to repeal it,
      Most real libertarians have favored privatization, with different preferred reforms to shrink the recipients and transition back Friedman’s was a Negative Income Tax. Repeal all the programs, and the bureaucracies, and give cash. BUT adding income would be a LOT less punitive than now. “Negative Income Tax” means reducing the benefits by a fixed low rate — likely 10% today or less (the lowest TAX rate).

  12. Im not going to click on Shikha awful at some website that values her Lefty rants.

    Go away.

    1. Amazing what passes for a “lefty rant” among conservatives these days. And what brings these anti-capitalists over here anyway?

      You know, Fox News is just a click away…..

    2. NOW Trumptards say Milton Friedman is a LEFTY!!

      CLICK HERE to see the devastating takedown behind the latest WHINING by precious snowflakes of the right. THEIR SAFE ZONE HAS BEEN VIOLATED

      The pussies

  13. Could we *not* encourage the use and spread of this bullshit term “weaponize”? As near as I can tell, it just means deploying an argument or legal doctrine in support of a position that the person using the term “weaponize” finds unpalatable. As in “weaponized social media,” “How conservatives weaponized the First Amendment,” and other dumbass takes.

    1. Wise but hopeless, Graphite.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Luckily they’re now less than 40% of the electorate, combined, and still shrinking.
      Brilliant strategists not seen since General George Custer. And he’s already disappeared.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.