So We Don't Have To Pay For Things We Are Morally Opposed To?

[cal04]

by Muzikal203
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/10/803134/-So-We-Dont-Have-To-Pay-For-Things-We-Are-Morally-Opposed-To

That seems to be the only argument for the Stupak amendment and why people support it. "Federal taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for things people are morally against." Well, a lot of us are morally against war, and yet we're paying for two of them. I'm morally against a lot of things Republicans stand for, and yet we're still paying their salaries. I'm morally against some of the rulings coming out of the Supreme Court, and yet we're paying the salaries of the 5 (or more) on that side until they die. I'm morally against what some of the Blue Dogs do, and yet we're paying for their salaries.

Since when do people get to pick and choose what the federal government does and does not pay for?

I'm in Ohio, my tax dollars help fund executions, and I'm very much morally opposed to that.

If the government didn't pay for everything that someone was morally opposed to, they'd never pay for anything.

This is just a short diary with my thoughts on that amendment and the arguments I've been hearing FOR it. If you don't want federal money to go towards paying for abortions, than use the part of the money that the woman is STILL paying for (as I understand it, none of the plans would be FREE) to pay for "that" part of the plan. I don't get what's so difficult about that.

What else is the Federal Government doing that I'm morally opposed to, I wonder?

[emilyg]

1. The government is screwing us and

I'm morally opposed to that.

[rwheeler31]

2. The corporations are doing so as well and I am opposed

to them. No more tax breaks for them

[saracat]

3. I am morally opposed to the expansion and existence of the office of faith based iniatives

comingling state and religion. It is paid for with my tax dollars.

[NMMNG]

4. Hey, I like that notion

Because there is a long list of things I would prefer my tax dollars not go to--starting with anything "faith based".

[tomm2thumbs]

5. Interesting take on it - was thinking there must be some thought along those lines

I remember students at college protesting that part of their student activity fee went to supporting student groups they didn't believe in (including gay/lesbian alliances) and they were screaming that they didn't want any of their money to support them - blah blah blah. If we all said that, we would be writing hundreds of mini-checks for our taxes to just the things we believed in and there would be nothing to show for it except carnival rides on every corner and a pizza oven in every kitchen.

[Demeter]

6. One Could Argue That We Aren't Paying for Anything, As It's All Done With Chinese Credit

which doesn't improve the situation, IMO.

[we can do it]

7. I am morally opposed to speed limits for myself

[The2ndWheel]

8. That would fit with the pro-choice aspect

Of course, that's why we're called tax payers, not tax allocators. Somehow we end up paying to have less say in the decision making process, and if you make a choice to not pay to have less say in how the money is spent, you go to jail/pay a fine. It's a hell of a system. You're in by default, and if you opt-out, you pay the penalty set by the system that you don't believe in and have little say in how it's constructed. That goes for whatever you do or don't believe in. That's damn impressive.

[Igel]

9. Of course.

Don't you know that the government would pay for everything if you didn't oppose it?

Seriously: It's a democracy, a representative one. You don't like your goverment's paying for something? You have a way of bringing the government to heel--if enough people disagree. You want the government to pay for something, within the guidelines that we've all agreed to? You also have a way of bringing the government to heel.

Which is precisely why there was a Stupak amendment, as opposed to a bunch of people and corporate boards just attaching a note to their tax returns showing the amount of tax that they were withholding from the government because they didn't want to pay for various things.

The problem is that money is fungible, so even if people *did* just attach notes to their 1040s it wouldn't necessarily prevent that amount of funding from going to causes they oppose. Since money is fungible, again, that's why there was a Stupak amendment.