PolicyMic

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the mandate is the only way to effectively regulate the health insurance industry (a premise I reject) this does not make it constitutional. The Constitution gives Congress enumerated powers. If the p...

• 1
• 0
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Jeff, I agree with your sentiments. The state clearly has an interest in inducing people to have coverage, but that doesn't come into the equation when determining whether the mandate is constitutional. Regulating after the fact in this set...

• 2
• 0
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. The question isn't whether uninsureds who seek care and then don't pay for it have an effect on interstate commerce. They most certainly do. Once that activity takes place, the Congress has the power to step in and regulate after the fact...

• 2
• 0
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Congress doesn't have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate your activity until you actually engage in that activity. Once thosse 44 million seek care and fail to pay, they are then subject to regulation; but not until that point....

• 1
• 0
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. All 44 million.

• 2
• 0
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. The ACA doesn't regulate health care; it regulates how we pay for it. Once I make the decision to go to the hospital and seek treatment, I am subject to regulation. However, my decision to forego insurance will only have an effect on interesta...

• 2
• 2
• 2 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I completely agree that Medicare is our biggest problem going forward. That being said, I do believe the ACA will completely ruin our private insurance system in short order. In fact, I think it was essentially designed with this goal in mind. Just...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I can't speak for other states, but here in NY, I know that we have all kinds of mandates which limit the use of high deductible, low cost plans. I am encouraged by the article you cite, and hope that the ACA doesn't discourage this type o...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. In my opinion: this is the kind of plan we need to actually address both problems with health care: access and affordability. The first problem is really a consequence of the latter. http://www.forbes.com/sites/deanzarras/2011/03/26/replace-obam...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @ Lawrence- Since now, apparently. The only party proposing real corporate tax reform is the GOP. Do you really think Paul Ryan would put together a video like that if he didn't truly support corp tax reform? WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT'S PLAN...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Do you really think auto safety regulations haven't increased the price of your car? You just don't see it b/c all of the cars have to comply. If the gov't subsidized your purchase of cars, you would see the same kind of inflation in...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. W/ regard to the private insurance market, the gov't has also screwed it up. They have so many mandates now that we all have to buy soup to nuts plans that costs an arm and a leg, with high co-pays. My own insurance tab has gone up 20% in the ...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Prices aren't arrived at in a vacuum. They are the result of competition. That's what keeps them from going through the roof. As I have said many times before; we have had very little inflation in all aspects of our society, but for ...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. We agree. Unless health care is properly addressed, 18% is impossible. The answer isn't more gov't. It's just the opposite. There are two ways to cut health care expenses: Gov't rationing or competition. I know which I wou...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I agree with you on the optics. That's why I spend so much time trying to get the truth out. It's tough to counter the "rich don't pay enough" mantra. Everyone wants to believe it, even if it's not reality. Why? B...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I'll tell you the reason I am opposed to raising taxes: We are able to garner 18% of GDP under current tax policies- as evidenced above. The only reason to raise more revenue is to pay for a gov't that spends more than 18% of GDP. ...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Actually, your data isn't correct. The top 1% had their tax rates fall from 37% in 1979 to 29.5% in 2007 (a 21% drop). Before the Bush tax cuts, they were only paying 32%. Meanwhile, the poor had their total effective tax rate cut in half...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Of course the US can keep printing money. We won't go bankrupt. However, if you have skyrocketing debt:revenue, and simply print more money to monetarize the debt, you end up with inflation. Plenty of nations have gone into the toilet b/c of ...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. We've heard a lot about this Grand Bargain- 4:1 cuts to spending. If Obama was actually in favor of such a strategy, he had the perfect opportunity to express this in his budget. Instead, what we got was $2.5 in tax increases for every real $1...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Thanks again Mr. Mitchell. We've all seen your link. I am sorry I don't agree with your conclusion that we can just open up the printing press and erase our debt without causing any harm to our economy.

• 3
• 1
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I actually disagree. I don't think there is a need to equalize capital gains with earned wages. When I earn money at my job, I pay income tax at X rate. I then take what I've earned and invest it in Y. Should I have to pay the same rate...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Do you have any figures going back to WWII? I'd love to see them. I can't find anything before 1979 other than marginal rates, which are completely meaningless. The deductions and loopholes before the Reagan tax reforms were insane. ...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. David, the revenue was over 17% of GDP for 4 years. Take a look back at the 70's, we had less than 18% lots of times, with much higher tax rates. People seem to forget that Bush inherited a crappy economy too. The dot com bubble just crash...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Actually, the top earners didn't pay a lot more than they do today. Take a look at my favorite chart: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456 In 1979, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, yet the top 20% of ea...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Everyone's assumption is that the economy comes back. If it weren't, Obama's budget proposal would look a heck of a lot worse. As for cutting spending, we have to realilze nobody is truly talking about cutting spending. All we ar...

• 3
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. The 2.5:1 figure is a joke. The reality is 1:2.5. He's only planning to reduce spending about $650 billion over ten years, while hiking taxes by $1.5 trillion. Should he get credit for cuts already signed into law and ending wars that were al...

• 6
• 2
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Btw Lawrence, guess who is proposing exactly the kind of corporate tax reform you are suggesting? Paul Ryan and the GOP. http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/14/paul-ryan-on-corporate-tax-ref Here's a nice video presentation for your enjoym...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. The non-partisan Medicare Trustees seem to agree with me. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalstate/2011-medicare-trustees-report/ The H1 trust fund is set to be exhausted by 2024, 5 yrs faster than projected. . . gulp. . ....

• 2
• 2
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. They actually did adopt many of the deficit commission's recommendations in their budget last year.

• 0
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. "well on the way to repairing Bush's budget damage"? Bringing the deficit down from $1.4 Trillion in 09 to $1.3 trillion in '12 is well on the way? Thanks for the always insightful commentary.

• 0
• 1
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. To be honest, I haven't looked into it enough to comment.

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Paul Ryan's latest Medicare reform plan has bi-partisan support. A Democrat is co-sponsoring the legislation. But I agree, it's going nowhere. The Dems would rather have the campaign issue than a solution.

• 1
• 9
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I agree that the actual number is meaningless. The problem is that the deficit/GDP is very high, as is the debt/GDP. If we followed Obama and the Democrats, this wouldn't be just a blip, it would be our future. We have to address the real dri...

• 1
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. What if the "economic morass" lasts a decade or more, like it has in Japan. In the meantime, we continue racking up this kind of debt year after year. Let's say we're $25 trillion in debt by 2012, unemployment remains high, with...

• 2
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I am sorry to insult your intelligence. I didn't realize a country could borrow 40 cents of every dollar in perpetuity and remain prosperous. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, did I ever suggest we should have never run a deficit? Th...

• 2
• 2
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I heard Chief of Staff Lew claiming that they propose to cut 2.5 dollars for every dollar raised in higher taxes. In fact, if you take out the phony $1 Trillion already signed into law and the $850 billion on wars we weren't planning on fig...

• 4
• 0
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. David, that's just not true. The Congress has routinely passed budgets. Budgets were passed under the Bush Adminsitration. You are correct to say that the President's budget isn't generally passed, but it's usually part of the ...

• 4
• 1
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. They may be often cited, but where's the evidence? Wouldn't the poor have been even poorer if not for the tax cuts? Their federal tax burden was cut in half. Sure the higher income earners also received a tax cut, but there's no ...

• 1
• 1
• 3 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. My point is that it has little, to nothing, to do with tax policy. The poor/middle class didn't advance as quickly as the wealthy b/c of many factors; chief among them international competition. Even if tax policy had remained the same; th...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. You seem to be a little overly sensitive. I really don't see how anyone could read my post as the least bit offensive or bordering on ad hominem. I think I was reasonably interpreting your earlier post: "We could go on ad nauseum about ...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Of course there are grey areas. However, I would say that the purpose of gov't is to provide law and order, protect private property, and perform the functions that a private sector cannot, or will not, reasonably provide. I guess my point...

• 2
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Your mixing a few different issues. I have never argued against gov't maintaining law and order, and protecting private property. Those are the proper functions of gov't; it's what separates us from places like Somalia. Accordingl...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. "Wealth is created as a group activity and then distributed to people in the group according to agreed or imposed societal rules." What are these "agreed or imposed societal rules"? Are you referring to the free exchange of go...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. A "transfer of wealth" implies that the poor had their money transferred to the wealthy. Money wasn't "transferred" from the poor to the wealthy. The poor/mid income folks just had their wealth increase at lower rates than ...

• 1
• 2
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Sure tax revenues fund payments to the "at-risk groups". But guess who is paying more of that tax revenue now than ever before? The wealthy. "The progressivity of the tax system is based on this flow of payments, which has always b...

• 2
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. What an awful idea. Do you really want central planners dictating how much people earn? Would they be any fairer than the free market? Is that the society you want to live in? Should Albert Pujols only make 36x the hot dog cart vendor?

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I can see your point. Perhaps I should have been more clear in that sentence. What I meant was that the poor received a greater percentage decrease in taxation than the wealthy; and they also ended up paying a lesser percentage of the total revenu...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Putting aside whether the stimulus was good, bad or indifferent; how can you claim the tax cuts were ineffective in the 2000's just b/c they didn't achieve the type of you job growth/gdp growth you and others desire? Did you ever stop to t...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. You are correct that there is no correlation b/w wealth and sweat equity. People earn what they earn based upon the principles of supply and demand in a free society. A women in Africa isn't a millionaire b/c there is very little demand for th...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Perhaps we should just have a cap? The wealthiest Americans are only allowed to make X times the poorest worker?

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. A few things: The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue to fund necessary gov't functions. In raising that revenue, we as a society have concluded that the wealthy should pay a higher proportionate share than the poor. That being said, the purp...

• 2
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Did I ever suggest that the top earners didn't have their income grow faster than their poor and middle class counterparts? For those poor people that had their after tax income drop by "2-3%", what would their after tax income be i...

• 1
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Finally, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans isn't going to make the poor and middle class more wealthy. That's a false premise. If a poor person is more wealthy today than they were 30 yrs ago; why does it matter that wealthy p...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I gave you all the data from the CBO and IRS. I wasn't cherry picking. You can look for yourself. Changes in taxation didn't create the income disparity. The rich were going to do better than the poor regardless of tax policy. By compari...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Thanks for the compliments. I am not arguing that the wealthy haven't made more money over the past 30 yrs than the poor/middle class. Of course they have. My point is that they would have made more money than the poor/middle class regardless ...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I wonder if you are among those that believe the stimulus bill has made our economy better. As I have heard it, the argument goes that things would be much much worse if not for the stimulus. We dubbed the new term "saved" jobs (a metric I ...

• 2
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. A few points on the article you cite: It's noted that the poor and middle class pay a higher portion of their incomes to state/local taxes. I would expect nothing less. However, my point is this: If not for the Reagan/Bush taxes, they would h...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Did you bother to read the article? I don't think I ever made the claim that the rich didn't take get to keep more of their own dollars than the poor/middle class secondary to the tax cuts. That would be preposterous. What I am saying is...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Great come back.

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I never saw the Fleischer tweets. That being said, the article is not intended to suggest that the wealthy haven't done better than the poor over the past 30 yrs. That's a separate argument for another day. The intent was to dispel...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I am sorry to bore you with facts and data. Carry on with your empty rhetoric.

• 4
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Do you disagree that the poor got a bigger tax cut than the wealthy based upon percentages of their own income? If so, how can you argue that they didn't benefit more, relatively speaking? Finally, if we can get 18% of GDP in revenues, ...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. What about going back to 79 rates? Would the poor and middle class be better off with those rates?

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. So we use the raw numbers when they look good for your claim, but ignore them otherwise? I think it's more intellectually honest to use the same metric for both. We'll have to agree to disagree. The budget was balanced for a passing mo...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. As Ken points out, I am not pulling the 18% out of thin air. Fifty years of history shows us that we have never brought in more than 20% of GDP in the history of our nation. Not even back in the "good old" days when marginal rates topped ...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Andrew, I also note that you point to raw numbers to suggest the wealthy received a greater part of the tax break. I am wondering whether you are also willing to use raw dollars in assessing the amount those very same people pay into the feds vs. th...

• 2
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Gotcha. At least you're honest. I guess I can't argue against miracles.

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Thanks Matthew for pointing out the obvious. There are many factors to explain why the middle class and poor haven't fared better. As spelled out in the article; tax policy isn't one of them. Cutting the poor's total tax bill in ...

• 0
• 2
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Andrew, your numbers aren't borne out by facts. The TOTAL effective tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise taxes, capital gains, and every other federal tax) has been cut in half for the poorest Americans. In 1979 they paid 8% of their inco...

• 0
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 1) Do you accept that revenue as a percentage of GDP was the same in 1979 as it was in 2007? Assuming the answer to the 1st question is yes: For your claim that the tax cuts cost us trillions of $'s to be true, you would have to conclude ...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. As I have indicated elsewhere, this article doesn't address whether there is greater income disparity today or 30 yrs ago. We'll leave that for another discussion. The point here is that tax policy has played no role in causing the dispari...

• 3
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. This isn't an article about income disparity. It's an article about the tax code, and who has benefited the most in real terms. We repeatedly hear that the tax code has become less progressive and the rich have gotten a huge tax cut while...

• 1
• 0
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. As you know, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts mostly effected income tax. Pay roll taxes go toward a defined benefit; or at least so we have been told. That being said, my article points out that the total effective income tax (including payroll taxes,...

• 1
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Andrew, How do you counter the undeniable fac that revenue as a % of gdp was exactly the same in 79 as it was in 07?

• 1
• 3
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. First off- tax cuts are not a cost. Reduced revenue doesn't "cost" us a dime. I agree that deficits have been funded by borrowing b/c spending has cont'd to outpace revenues. But, we have cont'd to bring in more revenue ...

• 3
• 2
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I am a little confused. The central point of the article is that the poor and middle class did get a tax cut; a substantial one- thanks to Reagan and Bush. Their tax cut was also more substantial than their wealthy counterparts. I am not suggesting...

• 4
• 1
• 4 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, I, unlike you apparently, happen to believe in our Constitutional form of gov't. We don't just make it up as we go along based upon the whims of the day. I would argue the law is against our best interests as a society, but that�...

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, that hasn't been the Mass experience. As you know, they basically have Obamacare light. It's been an unmitigated disaster. ER wait time is up along with insurance premiums. They are rising there faster than elsewhere.

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Shilpa, those who seek care may be subject to regulation. At least you are then engaging in commerce. I would argue that the effect on interstate commerce is so tenuous that Congress has no authority to regulate that activity, but the SCOTUS has al...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 1) Anyone who doesn't buy a good or service also has an effect on interstate commerce, albeit negligible. But that doesn't mean Congress has the right to regulate that inactivity. If they did have such a right, there would be no limit to Co...

• 3
• 1
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. How about mortgage insurance? If the housing bubble taught us anything, we now know that widespread foreclosures can cause serious harm to the economy at large. Can the federal gov't require everyone to buy mortgage insurance? Credit card in...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, are you arguing that the mandate is constitutional or that we should just simply ignore the constitution in this instance b/c the urgency of the day demands it?

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, our founders formed a constitutional form of government. We aren't guided by the "common sense" of the moment. We are guided by the Constitution. We can't just disregard it when it suits the desires of the moment. ("...

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Shilpa, I would agree that nearly everyone will interact w/ the health system at some point. Once you do interact w/ the system, you are subject to federal regulation. You are not subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause when you are s...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Darwin, believe it or not, you have no "right" to drive a car. It is a privilege granted by the state. You aren't given a license until you meet certain criteria set by the state. Once you are granted a license, you are subject to the ...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, It might make sense to order everyone to buy health insurance, but that doesn't make it constitutional. It might make more sense to have a dictatorship, but we have a constitution which limits the powers of the federal gov't. If you...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Darwin, the SCOTUS is very deferential to precedent, but as George points out, the court does reverse itself from time to time, e.g. Plessy. George, I don't know how you claim my arguments regarding the ACA are peripheral. Even Obama's l...

• 0
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Debating the ACA is peripheral to a discussion concerning the constitutionality of the act in question?

• 2
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I am not arguing the economics of the bill. I am arguing its constitutionality. There is no two sides to the argument you are presenting. My side has basis in law; yours does not. The constitution limits the role of the federal government. ...

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. George, we aren't debating whether the ACA is good or not. I could write 20 pages on why it's not, but that's a different issue. The question is whether it's constitutional. The "fuss" is all about whether the cons...

• 2
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. You can disagree all you want, but the law isn't on your side. You don't have a constitutional right to a drivers license. Driving is a privilege granted by the state. Putting aside the fact that the car insurance requirement is state...

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. If you adopt Obama's view of the Commerce Clause, you are engaged in interestate commerce as we speak. Everything you chose not to buy today had an impact on interstate commerce by reducing the demand for said product.

• 1
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Apples and oranges. First, auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the federal gov't. Second, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you don't want to buy auto insurance; don't buy a car. The mandate requires every American to b...

• 2
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I am certainly not ruling out the possibility that the law will be found constitutional. I recognize it's an uphill battle considering the long line of cases expanding the role of Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. That being said...

• 2
• 0
• 6 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Not really sure what we're arguing about? My point is that both war spending and tax cuts are stimulative. People can differ on the multiplier effect, but most every reasonable economist concedes that both are stimulative. As for your poi...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Regardless, it's still a multiplier. War spending doesn't cause contraction.

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Do you believe that it only costs 10% less to produce an Ipad in China vs. the US?

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. You took the words right out of my mouth.

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Darwin,Let's go back to the original point. This was your claim: "Making rich people richer only helps rich people." Through the course of this discussion, isn't it pretty clear that's just pure hyperbole with no basis in f...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @Darwin- Back to simple logic. If Steve Jobs is great for Apple, and Apple is great for the economy, isn't Steve Jobs in turn great for the economy? Or did he only make himself wealthy? I am well aware that the Ipod was created in 2004, but...

• 1
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I don't have a problem with using taxes to fund the common good. I do have a problem using taxes as a vehicle to redistribute wealth to adhere to some politician's notion of fairness. The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue to fund gov&...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @Darwin- Are you seriously suggesting that Apple's success hasn't helped average Americans? Can you possibly be that blinded by ideology? Might want to take a look at this article. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economi...

• 1
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @ Christopher, Actually, lowering taxes doesn't create deficits. You don't have a deficit unless you spend more than you take in. Despite the tax cuts, revenues would have been more than sufficient to pay for all expenses had spending...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. David- Couple things: The income inequality hasn't caused our economic woes. Just b/c there are more billionaires in the world doesn't mean everyone else made less. We don't live in a zero sum world. I have also heard a lot about ...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Show me a politician that hasn't been influenced by big donors.

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Darwin, are you under the misconception that companies that make profits overseas don't pay any taxes? They pay taxes in those countries. Why would they rather pay taxes in those countries than here in the US? Hmm. Maybe because our corp tax...

• 1
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Do you really think we had better economic growth in the 60's b/c we had higher taxes? I am also waiting for an answer to my first question: If raising the cap gains tax actually decreases the amount of revenues garnered are you still in fa...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I don't know how many times I have to make the point. Yes, his policies contributed to the deficit. Where is the evidence that the deficit caused economic downturn? The deficit as a % of GDP was well in line with historic deficits. As fo...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. I think you're missing the point. Yes, the wars and out of control gov't spending contributed to the deficit. I would be the first to criticize Bush for the explosion in gov't spending. However, the deficit didn't cause the dow...

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. Darwin, what specific Bush policy caused our "wealth building capacity" to head overseas?

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. If only I could steer away from the talking points like yourself. . .

• 0
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 1) If I told you that raising the capital gains tax actually leads to decreased tax revenue would you still be in favor? 2) Isn't it a good idea to have tax rates on investment income at a low rate?

• 2
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @Andrew- I am pleased to see that you acknowledge the role of Fannie and Freddie in the crisis. Was there predatory lending? I am sure there was. Was it Bush's fault? No. That's my point. As for the tax cuts, my point is that they d...

• 2
• 0
• 8 months ago

Gary W. Patterson, Jr. @Chris, at least you acknowledge that the economics are classicly accepted; even by the left. Truth is that these principles continue to hold. Our economy didn't collapse b/c of these policies; it collapsed in spite of them. Also, I don&#...

• 1
• 0
• 8 months ago