Comments on: “Change” or More of the Same? http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/ Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-American foreign policy. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:21:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Forexfireshttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-33466 Forexfires Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:11:52 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-33466 Keep posting and I'll keep coming back, thanks Keep posting and I’ll keep coming back, thanks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Valeriehttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-9189 Valerie Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:54:16 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-9189 I have just hopped on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Not since JFK have I been able to catch a glimpse of something in a potential president that resembles honesty and a sincere concern for the people. I see that in Ron Paul and hope he will run in the next election. For the first time in my life, I will offer my services, whether in my own community or outside of it, for the purposes of seeing this man elected to the presidency. Ron Paul might be one against many at the political level, but he has an invisible army behind him who've had a fire lit under them as a result of the atrocities committed by the Bush Administration. I have just hopped on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Not since JFK have I been able to catch a glimpse of something in a potential president that resembles honesty and a sincere concern for the people. I see that in Ron Paul and hope he will run in the next election. For the first time in my life, I will offer my services, whether in my own community or outside of it, for the purposes of seeing this man elected to the presidency. Ron Paul might be one against many at the political level, but he has an invisible army behind him who’ve had a fire lit under them as a result of the atrocities committed by the Bush Administration.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: ChrisPhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8630 ChrisP Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:00:56 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8630 MarkL,Gin got it right.--ChrisP MarkL,

Gin got it right.

–ChrisP

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Hollyhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8620 Holly Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:21:20 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8620 All the comments about people wanting to vote for Ron Paul but he's not on the ballot. You can write someone in. I've already done this. All the comments about people wanting to vote for Ron Paul but he’s not on the ballot. You can write someone in. I’ve already done this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ginhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8584 Gin Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:25:11 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8584 MarkL...Chris P says in his message that only the amount ABOVE $75/$150K would get taxed. So if they make $76K, only that last $1K would be taxed, so they would pay all of $400 in tax, on a $76K salary. MarkL…Chris P says in his message that only the amount ABOVE $75/$150K would get taxed. So if they make $76K, only that last $1K would be taxed, so they would pay all of $400 in tax, on a $76K salary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Citizen1http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8574 Citizen1 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:19:18 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8574 It was Union's that built this country. Most Union members who are in a trade do follow a creed of a higher expectation from there employer and know that all they have themselves to offer is there honest day of labor for an honest day of pay. In the construction world I have seen non-union companies take shortcuts to see a job come thru in the end with a higher profit for the company. They do this by allowing shortcuts, hiring non-legal employees and not having any safety standards in place to protect their employees. Union construction employees take pride in their craftsmanship and are more professional in their craft. Now when you talk of Unions hurting individual employees you must understand that it is the people running the Union and not the actual Union ( same as the folks running this country). If not for my Union job my wife would not be able to stay at home with our children.if I was doing my profession outside of my Union and I was to quit I would not be able to find a job in my same profession here in my area. Jobs are not a dime a dozen. I am not for of you occupation, but you should not be so judgmental when you have never been in a Union. PS It was a Union that united this country in our civil war. It was Union’s that built this country. Most Union members who are in a trade do follow a creed of a higher expectation from there employer and know that all they have themselves to offer is there honest day of labor for an honest day of pay. In the construction world I have seen non-union companies take shortcuts to see a job come thru in the end with a higher profit for the company. They do this by allowing shortcuts, hiring non-legal employees and not having any safety standards in place to protect their employees.
Union construction employees take pride in their craftsmanship and are more professional in their craft.
Now when you talk of Unions hurting individual employees you must understand that it is the people running the Union and not the actual Union ( same as the folks running this country).
If not for my Union job my wife would not be able to stay at home with our children.if I was doing my profession outside of my Union and I was to quit I would not be able to find a job in my same profession here in my area. Jobs are not a dime a dozen. I am not for of you occupation, but you should not be so judgmental when you have never been in a Union.
PS It was a Union that united this country in our civil war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mike Cuneohttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8567 Mike Cuneo Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:38:21 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8567 Geno:I'm not really "against" unions, people should be free to assemble as they see fit. But everyone who rushes to support unions needs to check the facts. Such as:Fact- Teacher's unions discourage innovation in the education sector. The teacher's union actually has the effect of making it so difficult to get a teacher fired that they can get away with things they would never get away with if there was competition. A lot of teachers don't care if their students learn, don't work as hard as they should, or just do what they need to in order to not get fired.Fact- If you don't think you are getting a "good day's pay for a good day's work" then you are free to quit and go somewhere else to pursue a "good day's pay." There is no one forcing you to work for min wage or $50k a year, if you can make more somewhere else then go do it. If you can't find a "good day's pay for a good day's work" then you are in the wrong field because there are lots of people lining up to take your job.Fact- You do have the "ability to work in a safe environment" because I work in one and I'm not in a union. Working conditions are safe, especially for teachers. If you think they aren't, you have plenty of methods of recourse, including lawsuits, strikes, etc. Again, no one is forcing you to do some slave-type labor for bread and water only. If you think the job isn't safe then leave, eventually (if others agree) the company/industry will disappear.Fact- Whenever you enter a voluntary agreement there can never be a claim of "worker slavery" because slavery implied an involuntary agreement. Misunderstanding the agreement AFTER you enter into it is not slavery. If you agree to work for $5/hr and assume you are getting health care but you really aren't, is that slavery? You can always quit your job. Slaves can't quit.As far as your comments about Hitler, they really make no sense to me. Hitler banned unions because his agenda was to keep people apart so they couldn't organize against his wishes. You don't need a union to do that today, all you have to do is tell your boss "I quit" and he can't execute you.Basically unions hurt employees more than they help. There's no need to have a union to avoid being in danger of dying at work, if anyone can name one place that employs "slaves" I'll join a union right now. Geno:

I’m not really “against” unions, people should be free to assemble as they see fit. But everyone who rushes to support unions needs to check the facts. Such as:

Fact- Teacher’s unions discourage innovation in the education sector. The teacher’s union actually has the effect of making it so difficult to get a teacher fired that they can get away with things they would never get away with if there was competition. A lot of teachers don’t care if their students learn, don’t work as hard as they should, or just do what they need to in order to not get fired.

Fact- If you don’t think you are getting a “good day’s pay for a good day’s work” then you are free to quit and go somewhere else to pursue a “good day’s pay.” There is no one forcing you to work for min wage or $50k a year, if you can make more somewhere else then go do it. If you can’t find a “good day’s pay for a good day’s work” then you are in the wrong field because there are lots of people lining up to take your job.

Fact- You do have the “ability to work in a safe environment” because I work in one and I’m not in a union. Working conditions are safe, especially for teachers. If you think they aren’t, you have plenty of methods of recourse, including lawsuits, strikes, etc. Again, no one is forcing you to do some slave-type labor for bread and water only. If you think the job isn’t safe then leave, eventually (if others agree) the company/industry will disappear.

Fact- Whenever you enter a voluntary agreement there can never be a claim of “worker slavery” because slavery implied an involuntary agreement. Misunderstanding the agreement AFTER you enter into it is not slavery. If you agree to work for $5/hr and assume you are getting health care but you really aren’t, is that slavery? You can always quit your job. Slaves can’t quit.

As far as your comments about Hitler, they really make no sense to me. Hitler banned unions because his agenda was to keep people apart so they couldn’t organize against his wishes. You don’t need a union to do that today, all you have to do is tell your boss “I quit” and he can’t execute you.

Basically unions hurt employees more than they help. There’s no need to have a union to avoid being in danger of dying at work, if anyone can name one place that employs “slaves” I’ll join a union right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MarkLhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8562 MarkL Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:32:59 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8562 ChrisP, I'm not sure I understand you correctly - are you saying that only Americans making more than $75k (per person) should be taxed at 40%, and that would balance the budget? If not, just stop reading right here. :)If you DO think that this idea will work, let me ask what the incentive is for someone to make $76k? If I make $74,999, I keep all of it - if I make just $2 more, I have to give $30k to the fed, and keep $35k for myself? All you're asking for there is for people to use write-offs and other means off legal tax evasion to buck the system.And for those who make so much more than $75k that they couldn't possibly write it off to be under the line, they're the ones who own businesses, and will raise prices on everything they sell - they pass their losses on to the consumer, of course...and this equivalates to increased cost of living on EVERYONE, not just those under the $75k cap - including the already impoverished.A better idea would be a low rate, flat tax on EVERYONE, say 18%-22%, with no variations or allowances based on income. EVERYONE paying the same pecentage tax is just like all the kids wearing uniforms to school - no one is better or worse than the next, and real solutions could come from it....Is the idea of having a single, flat rate tax for ALL citizens really so hard to implement? I dont see why the highest bracket typically falls on the middle-class...and I really REALLY dont see how you think taxing ONLY the upper-class could possibly be a solution to our economic ruins.... ChrisP, I’m not sure I understand you correctly – are you saying that only Americans making more than $75k (per person) should be taxed at 40%, and that would balance the budget? If not, just stop reading right here. :)

If you DO think that this idea will work, let me ask what the incentive is for someone to make $76k? If I make $74,999, I keep all of it – if I make just $2 more, I have to give $30k to the fed, and keep $35k for myself? All you’re asking for there is for people to use write-offs and other means off legal tax evasion to buck the system.

And for those who make so much more than $75k that they couldn’t possibly write it off to be under the line, they’re the ones who own businesses, and will raise prices on everything they sell – they pass their losses on to the consumer, of course…and this equivalates to increased cost of living on EVERYONE, not just those under the $75k cap – including the already impoverished.

A better idea would be a low rate, flat tax on EVERYONE, say 18%-22%, with no variations or allowances based on income. EVERYONE paying the same pecentage tax is just like all the kids wearing uniforms to school – no one is better or worse than the next, and real solutions could come from it….

Is the idea of having a single, flat rate tax for ALL citizens really so hard to implement? I dont see why the highest bracket typically falls on the middle-class…and I really REALLY dont see how you think taxing ONLY the upper-class could possibly be a solution to our economic ruins….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Petrahttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8557 Petra Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:08:43 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8557 In my early twenties I belonged to a union for 7 years. I paid my dues and have a small pension to show for it when I retire. I had a working wage, was able to buy a home with the help of my spouse. I had excellent medical, vision and dental benefits and if I worked on a Sunday, I was compensated. I am now 44 years old and by choice switched jobs for various reasons several times over the years. I have very limited health care which I partially pay for in premiums and co-pays. I have no vision coverage, and most disturbingly to me, no dental care. Dental care is extravagantly expensive. My employer would love to do right by his employees but cannot keep up with the cost of insurance. My husband also works for a small business owner who cannot offer any health care. This just isn't a concern for union members who enjoy better wages and benefits in the form of health care and pensions/401k contributions. Yes, I am definitely in favor of unions and anywhere there is a union, it does bring up the wage level for other companies. In my early twenties I belonged to a union for 7 years. I paid my dues and have a small pension to show for it when I retire. I had a working wage, was able to buy a home with the help of my spouse. I had excellent medical, vision and dental benefits and if I worked on a Sunday, I was compensated.
I am now 44 years old and by choice switched jobs for various reasons several times over the years.
I have very limited health care which I partially pay for in premiums and co-pays. I have no vision coverage, and most disturbingly to me, no dental care. Dental care is extravagantly expensive. My employer would love to do right by his employees but cannot keep up with the cost of insurance. My husband also works for a small business owner who cannot offer any health care. This just isn’t a concern for union members who enjoy better wages and benefits in the form of health care and pensions/401k contributions.
Yes, I am definitely in favor of unions and anywhere there is a union, it does bring up the wage level for other companies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: ChrisPhttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-10-21/change-or-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-8550 ChrisP Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:46:45 +0000 http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=228#comment-8550 Let me talk about taxes. Using 2006 IRS data and Excel, I determined that if you have ZERO deductions (no mortgage deduction, no child deduction, no deductions at all), you could eliminate federal taxes on ALL single Americans making under $75,000 and eliminate taxes on ALL married Americans making under $150,000 year - IF you put a flat 40% tax on all income ABOVE those two levels and BALANCE the BUDGET! And yes that's a ZERO tax rate on Corporations - which would create a HUGE boom to employment in this country.Now remember, that budget is a bloated nightmare, so the flat tax could come down a long way through budget cuts.That said, my idea does NOT drop the Soc. Sec. or Medicare tax. Let me talk about taxes. Using 2006 IRS data and Excel, I determined that if you have ZERO deductions (no mortgage deduction, no child deduction, no deductions at all), you could eliminate federal taxes on ALL single Americans making under $75,000 and eliminate taxes on ALL married Americans making under $150,000 year – IF you put a flat 40% tax on all income ABOVE those two levels and BALANCE the BUDGET! And yes that’s a ZERO tax rate on Corporations – which would create a HUGE boom to employment in this country.

Now remember, that budget is a bloated nightmare, so the flat tax could come down a long way through budget cuts.

That said, my idea does NOT drop the Soc. Sec. or Medicare tax.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>