Sorry, can't resist a shot at each of them:
* A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93 per cent)
In isolation, yes. Falls down in a system where housing benefit dominates much of the market. Falls down even worse when building land is the limiting factor and taxpayer subsidies feed through to higher land prices.
* Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93 per cent)
In isolation, yes. But may have perverse effects on movements of people.
* Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement. (90 per cent)
Yes, with various flaws including race-to-the-bottom and debasement. Haven't you put the case here for freer competition (c.f. Bitcoin)?
* Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90 per cent)
Dangerous. As exercised in the West, it's gone from sugar-rush to heroin-rush. The politician's dream: short-term gain, for long-term pain. Keynes must be spinning in his grave!
* The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries. (90 per cent)
You source work to people, not countries. Where those people are physically located matters in some jobs but not others.
* The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies. (85 per cent)
As should other countries. And agriculture should be weaned off unsustainable practices such as heavy use of petrochemical fertilisers. In other words, post-1945 policy (whence came the subsidies) should have been an emergency measure to tide us over a period of unsustainable overpopulation.
* Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises. (85 per cent)
Bugger. Can't bring myself to quibble with that at all. Put a levy on overfed "sports" (like professional football) to fund sporting facilities for kids.
* If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85 per cent)
Horribly dangerous. That's what Brown was saying around 2004/5 when the big Ballsian stimulus was supposed to get us through a percieved downturn to the sunny uplands of never-never-land. Turns a regular recession into a generational crash and a zombie economy. And it's happening again now as another chancellor runs a huge deficit right through the illusory Good Times.
* The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged. (85 per cent)
Interesting use of the future tense. Politicians like to compare to post-war reconstruction, but it's kind-of a 90/10 rule: you can rebuild the 90% very easily from a bombed-out 1945, but you won't get that kind of growth when you're already at 90% and up.
* Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value. (84 per cent)
What recipients? Not those who spend it on fags-and-booze, nor their children. And that's precisely where the worst social problems lie.