You don't get a refund on it, because it is being used for defense (either overtly or through intimidation). As such, you are not entitled to any such money back.
As for not paying your taxes...that is a choice you can make too. Plenty of people don't pay income taxes at all. Oddly enough...those are the same people that want me to pay for something else for them.....
~Jeordam
As for not paying your taxes...that is a choice you can make too. Plenty of people don't pay income taxes at all. Oddly enough...those are the same people that want me to pay for something else for them.....
~Jeordam
Both when you use it directly (which I have yet to do with a stealth bomber, unless Civ II counts) and when you indirectly benefit from a larger and healthier (thus cheaper and more productive) labor and technical pool.
As for taxes: You tax people with money; taxing people with no money tends to build deficits (not that it stopped Reagan, of course). If I can pay taxes for an Iraq invasion illegal under international law simply because a majority of our elected representatives voted for it, you can pay taxes for a perfectly constitutional healthcare bill a majority of those same representatives voted for as well.
Meh. A lot of folks would like to pick and choose what taxes they do and don't pay and each thing on which those taxes are spent. Of course, if every government expenditure without unanimous popular approval were unconstitutional I'd have gone to the SCOTUS when I was "forced" to subsidize SUVs for people who didn't need my help buying expensive, global warming, foreign oil dependent and unsafe road hogs. As the Republicans will remind us all when they have another legislative majority, if you don't like the law you change it, not get a judge to illegally annul it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law -
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1227 Views
- 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
1227 Views
*yawn*
- 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
882 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal!
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
349 Views
*NM*
- 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
349 Views
So riddle me this...
- 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
875 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
- 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
843 Views
That wasn't my question.
- 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
942 Views
I get what you're saying...
- 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
936 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
- 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
873 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
- 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
798 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
- 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
920 Views
*nods*
- 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
916 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
- 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
1023 Views
It's judicial review
- 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
898 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
- 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
919 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
- 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
940 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
- 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
836 Views
there is a major problem with this..
- 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
881 Views
Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
850 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
- 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
858 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
839 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
- 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
865 Views
Just to note....
- 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
840 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
- 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
810 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
- 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
823 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
- 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
1012 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
- 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
421 Views
