Re: Taxpayer line-item veto
Dan Goodman
>
> TedJ...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> I'd think very little actual effect; wouldn't everyone's taxes just
>> be considered to cover what they didn't veto? Some people
>> veto the military, say; fine, then their taxes are now the ones
>> paying for social services, while for the people who didn't
>> veto the military, more of their taxes pay for the military and
>> less for social services than they would otherwise.
>
> Suppose a majority of the tax-payers vetoed a military. That would
> mean the U.S. would become defenseless in short order. It is the kind
> of outcome that Ann-Coulter-Class liberal traitors might favor.
If a majority of the tax-payers were that opposed to military
expenditures, the government wouldn't be able to maintain a military
anyway -- unless, of course, the system of government was changed to a
much less democratic one.
Note: One of the purposes of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)
seems to have been to make a professional army unnecessary.
> Fortunately we done not have this system, run by an April 15
> plebiscite. That is half-way to anarchy.
And what's wrong with being half-way to anarchy? It beats being
half-way to totalitarianism, I would say.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/ Whatever you wish for me, may
you have twice as much.
David Tenner
209.98.13.60:
>
> If a majority of the tax-payers were that opposed to military
> expenditures, the government wouldn't be able to maintain a military
> anyway -- unless, of course, the system of government was changed to a
> much less democratic one.
There is a "free rider" problem, though. There are certain functions of
government that most people agree are necessary, but which they may find
unpleasant and hope to make *other* people pay for, while their own money
goes for things like medical research.
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in
>>
>> If a majority of the tax-payers were that opposed to military
>> expenditures, the government wouldn't be able to maintain a military
>> anyway -- unless, of course, the system of government was changed to
>> a much less democratic one.
>
> There is a "free rider" problem, though. There are certain functions
> of government that most people agree are necessary, but which they may
> find unpleasant and hope to make *other* people pay for, while their
> own money goes for things like medical research.
And sometimes people don't realize what's necessary.
I remember a co-worker saying -"I don't drive. I ride the bus -- why
should I have to pay for roads?"-
Robert J. Kolker
> And what's wrong with being half-way to anarchy? It beats being
> half-way to totalitarianism, I would say.
When the Barbarians or not only at our gates but through the portcullis
and over the moat, you might think otherwise. We need an Army to survive.
Why should the minority permit the majority to commit a form of suicide
that will take -everyone- down? If we are all in the same boat on a
storm tossed sea, we cannot permit anyone to drill holes even if it at
-their half- of the boat.
Bob Kolker
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:Xns94FEEDDDEA8...@209.98.13.60...
You see it Dan.
Give the taxpayers the ability to YANK the purse-strings.
He/she can't reduce what they owe, but they can channel where it can go.
Anarchy? Capital Hill is today's anarchy!
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>> And what's wrong with being half-way to anarchy? It beats being
>> half-way to totalitarianism, I would say.
>
> When the Barbarians or not only at our gates but through the
> portcullis and over the moat, you might think otherwise. We need an
> Army to survive.
Correction: We need a _good_ military force. It's not entirely certain
that the US Army fits that description.
What _is_ certain is that much military spending is determined by
non-military considerations. That weapon is useless? It's made in
Congressman Doe's district; the manufacturer and the unions would be
very unhappy if that business went away. That base isn't needed? It
provides jobs in Senator Roe's state.
> Why should the minority permit the majority to commit a form of
> suicide that will take -everyone- down? If we are all in the same boat
> on a storm tossed sea, we cannot permit anyone to drill holes even if
> it at -their half- of the boat.
So, are you saying that Canada and Mexico should take action if US
policies endanger all of North America? Or are you saying that those
who consider pacifism the only safe military policy should sabotage
military forces?