Why should MY taxes:

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Why should my taxes go to pay for such SOCIALISM?

Paying to train a group of people to do a job? Why should MY taxes go to provide these people with meals, health care, vehicles, places to sleep, and the tools to do their jobs?

Why?

This is socialist and as we all know everything socialist is bad.

The group I am talking about is the military.

Why should I pay to train someone to kill? Why should my tax money go to bombs? Why should my tax money go to building a nuclear arsenal?

I never get to use it, so why should I have to pay for it?

And you know that military personnel are lazy too, they go off, get their legs blown off on purpose just so they can live on the dime of the citizens, getting free health care from the VA. Those Commies!

If people want a military they should donate to a PMC and not take MY tax money to pay for these people.

edit on 3/5/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Hey, that was pretty good. It's been a long time since I've been able to laugh at a strawman argument. You've got a good style. Usually strawman arguments just make me cringe. Thanks.


+12 more 
posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


And you know that military personnel are lazy too, they go off, get their legs blown off on purpose just so they can live on the dime of the citizens, getting free health care from the VA. Those Commies!


If you're attempting to raise awarness thru sarcasm, epic fail...this message could have been relayed without the amateur rhetoric seen above.





Since 2006..? You chump...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I agree!

Well, not in that we shouldn't have a military, but that we shouldn't have a military that patrols the world, foreign bases, senseless wars and so on.

I'd rather all the money spent taking care of Afghans and Iraqis be used to help our own unemployed and sick, hell we could have given everyone a free year of college with that money, or countless other programs.

Yet for some reason, despite who's in power or who's not, no one has even tried to touch the "Defense" budget..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 
You know what makes me laugh? people who post but contribute NOTHING.


Back to topic, I thought this was a very good thread S&F our soldiers aren't fighting for our freedom, there fighting for the elite who want oil, they just don't know it.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Yes... taxes should go toward defense of our nation. Not hegemony.


get their legs blown off on purpose just so they can live on the dime of the citizens, getting free health care from the VA. Those Commies!



Do you honestly think people want ot get their "legs blown off on purpose"?... so they can live off the system?
These statements are a complete joke. I can tell your ticked off as am I about the way socialism is being used these days but paleeeeze.

This thread belongs in the rant section.
edit on 5-3-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
This is the exact argument conservatives use to try and justify ridding social programs like Medicaid and Social Security.

Now do you see how ridiculous this argument is?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


So you know why every soldier fights? Wow....your good. Fortunatly we all fight for our own reasons.

OP it shows you obviously haven't had to work with the VA....they are horrible. Go out and get our legs blown off? My god please tell me this thread was a joke..



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 



Go out and get our legs blown off? My god please tell me this thread was a joke..


The conservative equivalent of "Everyone who is poor is lazy and is that way on purpose".

Of course I don't believe that soldiers go and get themselves injured on purpose, but many conservatives believe the poor are poor because they are all lazy.

Do you see now how ridiculous the conservative argument against social programs is? I myself don't use any social programs. But I know that there are people who need them. And I am glad they are there to help people out.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Their is a major difference between the two arguements....



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It's not called the military, it's called the "Defense Force" and that's ALL our taxes should pay for..

If the elites want oil by invading foreign lands and killing millions of civilians then let them pay for their own army..
See if they make a profit then..!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Not everyone is lazy....jobs ARE hard to come by now. At the same time their are those who believe they are too good to work at mcdonalds, so instead they live off of the govt. I have yet to know ANY combat vets who wanted to "have their legs blown off" so they can receive benefits from the VA which rarely happens.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Why should you pay without your consent?

Why you ask? Is the question rhetorical? Surely you know the answer already.

The answer, of course, is because your are *forced* to.

Your consent is not required for the inifinite force of government to tax (steal) your wealth and spend it arbitrarily as it sees fit.

What right does the mafia have to demand 'protection' money?

What right does a pirate have in demanding 'safe passage'?

None other than the 'right' of force, or course. Your input is inconsequential in the face of the supporters of institutionalized, aggressive violence. Have your little debate, type some angry words on the net, vote for someone who promises less violence...aaaaaand squat. You pay. You pay forever increasing amounts for ever declining services. Your currency is continually debased. Your stolen money is spent in increasing amounts on increasingly evil things. Your standard of living collapses, and still you pay more. Your freedom is stolen from you while you foot the bill for it. You reap what you sew.

Voted for that politician to point the violence of the state at someone else? Consequences. Went along with the crowd in supporting expanded state power? Consequences. Hoped against reason you would be delivered from this long slide into hell by checking a little box in some anonymous booth only to have your irrelevant say - so discounted by vote fraud, be it mechanical or otherwise? CONSEQUENCES. Every time you give your consent to a system predicated on the GUN you sew the seeds of your own demise, as violence is always a negative sum game, and everytime we defer our own consent to the rule of the monopoly of violence, we add to the negative stream of human development that must always devolve into a whirlpool of ever increasing force and turmoil.

Now you might understand that you never had a choice all along, but only the illusion of choice sustained by endless lies. Youre a *slave* dammit, you never had a choice. You *must* pay your extortion fees or you will be dragged off to the rape rooms. You have no choice.

The only choice you have is your consent. After all, the system rests on consent. You may not be able to decide how your money is spent, but you can sure be vocal in your disagreement in its theft. If we withdraw our consent, the system crumbles. Perhaps we can build something less evil on the other side.
edit on 5-3-2011 by Neo_Serf because: bs



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Oh, I don't know...might have something to with some old law on the books somewhere that is rarely followed anymore. Let me do a seach and see if I can find a link to quote it...ah, here we go the relevant parts of funding and maintaining a military force:


Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



I suppose they could always have those serving in the military pay for all the thing needed, but since that is taxpayer funded they will either need a very huge raise or privatize the whole function.

Privatization means they would have to make war for pure profit, thus invading rich countries for bribes to stop, national treasury captures, easy to sell resources or real estate transaction... perhaps just good old mercenary work. Not a bad idea but to lower the cost of training these private soldiers into becoming killing machines, they would probably do live fire exercises on criminals, captured enemies....


Or just use local dissidents that criticized their operations.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Socialism provides you with a way to make ends meet if you get hurt or sick on the job. Socialism makes sure that if you can't afford a private school for your kid that they are provided a spot for them to get an education.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


Actually there isn't any real difference between the two arguments.

They are both completely ridiculous. Of course we need a military, and we do need some social spending as well. I just wanted to point out how incredibly ignorant the Conservative argument against "entitlements" is.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Its funny because we took the exact same scenario or the privatization of defense forces and came to the exact opposite conclusion. Lets see whos logic holds up.

In a free and non coercive situation, at least three companies would approach us as potential customers, and, knowing they cannot rely on the mass theft of the state to insure their income, but instead on the will participatioin of their customers, they offer three diffrenent plans to the now free consumer of personal defence. (of which we all are)

Company one offers: An aggressive, imperial posture. Advanced offensive weaponry, overwhelming and world destroying array of nukes, bases all around the world, garanteed to be fighting at least a couple *hugly* costly wars at all times, (which the voluntary potential consumer would be footed the bill for) a policy of tortue, a policy of supporting 3rd party dictators, a policy of general imperial antagonism. Pricetag for the average customer = $100 000 (at least, wars aint cheap) per year. (current NATO model, which we all are forced to pay for now)

Company two offers: A passive aggressive stance. Aggressive nuclear sheild under which proxy wars are fought, primarily relying on 3rd party proxies instead of direct intervention. Pricetag for average consumer = $50 00 per year (at least, bribing thrid world dictators isnt cheap) Sort of cold war model.

Company three offers: A purely defensive force. A small amount of nukes to deter any attack. Encourages and offers discounts to customers who own their own means of self defense. A massive fund held by a thrid party if anyone finds them to be in breach of their stated forces. Open door policy to any inspector wanting to verify that they arent producing zombie robots with lasers for eyes by the million. Pricetage to average consumer (for a handful of nukes and a small profesional army) = $100 per year. (or so, with no aggressive empire to maintain, and no blowback from enemies created via imperialism, geographical defence could be very cheap.) I know who Id contract.

I think given the choice, not one in a hundred would chose empire if the costs were visible to him upfront instead of disgusied by the state by means of inflation and other such schemes that mask the true cost and net loss that is war to the people engaged in it.

Simply put, how long would the war in Iraq go on for if you actually had to pull out your checkbook and write a huge sum to the department of war, *cough* i mean the department of defence?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


Actually there isn't any real difference between the two arguments.

They are both completely ridiculous. Of course we need a military, and we do need some social spending as well. I just wanted to point out how incredibly ignorant the Conservative argument against "entitlements" is.


Oh yeah Whatukno....it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are tearing this nation apart and trying to turn this great nation into another Russia just like Barry and his Obamanation plan.,

While Rush, Beck, Palin, Newt, Savage, Levin, Prager, Boortz, OReilly, Ingraham, Medved and Belling are trying to bring folks together so we can all live as one big happy family, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that just won't listen and continue fan the flames of commie hatred to God loving, fearing lovers of peace and harmony.

I hope you're happy! And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!

edit on 5-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa


Oh yeah Whatukno....it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are tearing this nation apart and trying to turn this great nation into another Russia just like Barry and his Obamanation plan.,

While Rush, Beck, Palin, Newt, Savage, Levin, Prager, Boortz, OReilly, Ingraham, Medved and Belling are trying to bring folks together so we can all live as one big happy family, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that just won't listen and continue fan the flames of commie hatred to God loving, fearing lovers of peace and harmony.

I hope you're happy! And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!

edit on 5-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha!


Posts like this make me think that there is no hope for humanity



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 





And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!


I take it you went to Jesus camp?


And if you seriously believe Beck&Co are trying to bring people together you are delusional. They only want an all-white Christian community and the rest can go to hell...pretty clear if you watch Fox more than once


If they bring people together, it's by lying


Fox during the 2010 presidential election: "Sarah Paling & McCain are super, vote for them!"
Fox news after the election: "LOOOOL, Palin doesn't even know Africa's a continent...she's so dumb!"
Fox news a little later: "Let's hire Palin to bless our viewers with her expert analysis."



Also, let's not forget that Shep Smith was the only person at Fox agreeing with Stewart regarding the 911 first responders bill. Those people sacrificed their HEALTH to save others, and after saying "911" about twice in every sentence during its "news" segments and opinion shows, Fox's general message was that helping people like that would be communism. That is, until they found out it's highly popular at which point they all jumped on Shep's and Stewart's bandwagon




And lastly, let's not forget how they misrepresent net neutrality...



Or just watch these lunatic Beck rants






And more Beck crazyness:





Bringing people together....suuuuuuuuuuure, but only in your little fantasy world





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join