With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from?
Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed.
Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
You can just pretend 100% of your tax dollars goes to services you use then. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that? I understand you personally don't want to spend on those things, but in our system our representatives voted to send that aid. It's not Trump's to withhold.
>. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that?
This is what I'm proposing. Eliminate aid, that filters back into Americans not being forced to pay for it. Those who want to can use their savings to donate or fly over and fight.
For reference, I have no police service, no fire service, no public roads where I live. Road access for miles and miles are private easements which works without taxes -- I first built my road with an axe and a shovel with no government assistance. I have privately drilled water, a privately made sewer, and private electric for which I personally funded the power poles. I pay for private education for my children, on top of taxes for public school. Any remaining scraps of public services you might claim I get, I assure you it would be cheaper for me to buy privately than pay ~30% of my income as I do now in tax.
I don't want your tax money or services. You have a deal.
And yet, here you are on the Internet, built with public dollars. You're happy to purchase goods delivered by public infrastructure. You're happy to use a cell phone and a computer which are designed and engineered largely by people educated with public dollars. When your kids are sick, you take them to a doctor who was educated at public institutions, whose education was funded with public loans, who will prescribe medicine developed using public research grants.
And the idea that your wife and children could be raped and murdered (along with yourself of course) by an invading horde is so far from your mind that you don't even register it as something you're paying for, but if we all weren't paying for other people to protect your liberty, you might be just as unfortunate as the Ukrainians right now, who are facing that very threat.
You think you can fund an army yourself with 30% of your income? Really?
Your mistake here is to believe that if something is public the alternative it must be privately funded by a single individual. I cannot pay engineers to design a car, but a bunch of people can get together and pay for it then me and others will pay a little when they buy them.
I share my private well with several people who cannot afford a well on their own -- i cant afford it on my own withot them. It's all done privately without government. Thus can happen with militias, with healthcare, other infrastructure, the whole shebang. There is no need for private defense to be entirely funded by one person, for instance as I mentioned previously in the militia I fought in against isis everyone beside me there was on their own dime for a collective defense.
Your ideal doesn't scale. You want the luxuries of modern society without having to fund the bureaucracy and the overhead that comes with it. Your idealized homesteading way of life is incompatible with the existence of cell phones and computers, which are the result of a highly modernized society that does require a large government to function.
Militias don't protect against invading armies. If you want to protect against an army, you need to fund an army.
What's interesting is every time I suggest American taxpayer mustn't pay for Ukraine, this is the rabbit hole those of your opinion seem to go down.
What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on. My opinion on other taxes notwithstanding, this rabbit hole of cell phones and modern society falling apart and my wife being raped (seriously wtf) because I didn't spend jonnies Christmas money on Ukraine is unraveling. This is why Trump won, and the aid will end. We're done being blackmailed with apocolyptic threats, and the false dichotomies.
> What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on.
It kind of doesn't matter how you feel about it though.
The way we resolve our difference of opinion is our system of representatives. You elect representatives to champion your cause, I elect representatives to champion mine, and then they figure out a compromise memorialized as a bill.
So when you say "well I don't want to spend money on this"... so what?? Your opinion was counted. The decision was that money would be sent but not as much as we would like -- a compromise. This is what enables us to live in harmony.
If you want to throw out the compromise, you're also going to throw out the harmony.
> my wife being raped (seriously wtf)
See? You think this possibility so remote, you just scoff at it. If you had asked Ukrainians in 2021 if it was a possibility it would be happening to them today, some would say yes, but most people felt it was not a possibility. Then it happened.
Your position is just as precarious as theirs was before the war, because you are dependent on distant people to protect your liberty. That's what you pay taxes for.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure. Make your own nation, defend your own land against stronger neighbors (the USA in this case), and actually be independent.
You won't do it though because deep down you know you depend on the rest of us, you're just salty you're asked to contribute anything at all.
Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision. So far I haven't been attacked by the US army or anything like that and my cell phone is still working.
Somewhere in your calculation you are wrong. And it's not my 'feeling' that got us here, your feeling we ought to fund Ukraine is contradicting reality right now. Either US institutions don't function as you think or they are working as you intended with a different mandate than you like. Either way your monologue about renouncing and fighting the USA serves only as your own personal entertainment to distract from that.
> Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision.
It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
> Either US institutions don't function as you think
US institutions do function like I think, because I learned how they function, it's pretty straight forward: Congress has the power to how spend money, and the President spends it. That he chooses not to is an abuse of power, and violates the law [1], the Constitution [2], and his oath of office [3].
Congress voted for that money to be spent, and the former President signed it into law. Not spending it unlawfully usurps Congress' Article I "power of the purse", and violates the Article II "take care" clause.
I think it's pretty clear, can you cite where the law and Constitution supports your argument?
>It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
This is a shortcutted, half correct view.
Impoundment Is generally illegal and/or unconstitutional.
However,
IF a Congressional directive to spend were to interfere with the President’s authority in an area confided by the Constitution to his substantive direction and control, such as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and his authority over foreign affairs . . . a situation would be presented very different from [a domestic impoundment]. [0]
The basis of this is used in Supreme Court opinion of [1] as discussed in [2]:
If the president may impound appropriations that invade his recognition power, it follows that he may likewise do so when Congress infringes on other exclusive powers, such as that of chief diplomat. ... Similarly, the impoundment power may extend to the president’s core and exclusive powers as commander-in-chief.
The trouble here is youre trying to shut off powers that intersect congress and the president by assuming congress can override article 2 [3] powers through military aid funding mandates. Military impoundment goes all the way to Jefferson. There is strong basis to believe Trump's military aid impoundment is constitutional exercise of the mandate of the democratic voice electing him.
Okay so I read all of [2] -- it doesn't support your argument like you want it to.
The author argues for impoundment pertaining to exclusive powers, which are very few and limited in the Constitution. I actually agree with the argument laid out in the piece, but I don't think it supports the idea that Trump is within his legal right to impound Ukraine aid.
The core argument is that Congress can't legislate the President's exclusive powers away, and I agree with that. The author then applies a "gloss" test which is used by legal scholars to help interpret the Constitution by taking into account a variety of historical and contemporary contexts.
They apply this test to the idea that POTUS is within his right to impound funds that intersect with this exclusive power as CIC. And they show historically it has been the case that POTUS has impounded WPC funds - military weapons, personnel, and construction.
Key arguments here are that Jefferson did it in the past, and the President is better situated as the head of the executive branch to identify waste in the huge defense complex than Congress, so he should be able to say "Actually we have enough, thanks." despite Congress wanting to spend more.
So we can agree that POTUS has a narrow impoundment power within his exclusive executive authority. The operative word there is exclusive, because where this argument fails is that we're not talking about WPC funding, so Ukraine aid is out of scope for this argument.
However, they do provide this argument. Some choice quotes from the piece you linked:
Curtiss-Wright did not hold that the President is free from Congress’ lawmaking power in the field of international relations . . . . In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential [that] the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. For it is Congress that makes laws, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nation’s course. The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue . . . . It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the Nation’s foreign policy.155
The dissenters, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Antonin Scalia, did not agree that the president’s recognition power was exclusive, arguing instead that it was a shared power with Congress.156 Like the majority, they also repudiated Curtiss-Wright. 157 Only Justice Clarence Thomas clung to a Curtiss Wright conception of presidential power in foreign policy.158 Therefore, eight Justices agreed that Congress has substantial legislative authority in the foreign policy sphere.
In the words of Justice Kennedy, “[W]hether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law.”
With Ukraine aid, we're not talking about WPC impoundment, we are talking about foreign aid impoundment, and a very recent Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed that can't be done unilaterally by the President, because it's not within his exclusive powers.
>The author argues for impoundment pertaining to exclusive powers, which are very few and limited in the Constitution. I actually agree with the argument laid out in the piece, but I don't think it supports the idea that Trump is within his legal right to impound Ukraine aid.
The article, and my prior citations explain how this can expand to military funding. If POTUS cannot impound military funding and instead must distribute funding to armies for proxy wars, he is effectively bypassed as commander in chief. That you've simply declared the history, opinions, constitution don't allow impoundment of money for military weapons and personnel etc doesn't make it true. indeed,this impoundment is happening before our eyes through the machinations of the system. This is democracy in action.
The US and Europe doesn't send them arms because they're a "proud independent people." The arms deals are to maintain international order, that no country should invade and annex another. If you just allow that to happen, everybody will be worse off. That's why there is so much resistance to paying for Israel to annex Gaza and so much support for Ukraine to fight off Russia.
Taxes fund civilization and the world we've built. The IRS collects a percentage of our money to build roads and infrastructure, defend our nation's interests, provide income in retirement, provide health care, and so much more good stuff.
Part of that is ensuring that the world is stable so that our nation doesn't have to go to war. We do that with alliances, investment in military force, investment in diplomacy, and investment in building economic opportunity globally so people don't turn to violence.
It doesn't always work; no system is perfect.
But Ukraine is the perfect example of a democratic nation that has been invaded by a dictatorship and needs our support. They have already destroyed most of the Russian army and economy with our support, and we need to finish the job.
If we don't give them the resources to finish the job, it is just a matter of when the next dictator does similar, and we are forced to send our people to fight. Do you want to go fight in Tawain? Do you want to find in Estonia?
History has shown us that isolationism doesn't work, nor does giving into naked aggression from dictators and autocrats.
> Well we've voted representation against funding Ukraine and in this case it aligns with personally not consenting to funding Ukraine.
No we didn't. We may have voted for a president who is against funding Ukraine, but notably his role is not to spend money - that is reserved for Congress, and our representatives did vote to spend this money. Meaning, we voted to spend it, so he has no right to hold it up. That he has withheld it is anti-democratic, because it's contrary to Congress' spending directive, and therefore against the people.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure.
Comments are supposed to get more substantive as the conversation goes on. Do you have something substantive to add? Because mocking me ain't that. Especially when it doesn't even make sense -- I'm not the one saying taxes are theft, pretending I'm rugged and independent.
I provided a substantial reply as to why you're wrong about military impoundment in our other thread where you asked for citations.
Instead you bypassed that, and start proselytizing about mockery after threatening my wife with a raping. Let's not pretend your conversation has decorum. I am being extremely charitable to you after your threats about my family.
>independent
And yet my initial comment was on Ukraine being independent. The irony here is your Jackyll and Hyde treatment of independence -- you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
I didn't bypass anything I'm reading the sources you left, they're over 50 pages long...
> after threatening my wife with a raping
I didn't threaten your wife with anything. I said you aren't worried about such a thing because an army protects her from that literal fate, and Ukrainians experience that fate because they foolishly trusted others to protect them. It's beyond me how you interpret that as a threat.
> you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
Because they don't pay taxes to benefit from such things. Instead they are the recipients of aid that was given to them. Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward.
>Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward
They use more than half of the things you mentioned. Banking services, airports (how does zelensky get here?), defense articles. Wasn't that your demand of independence, not to use them, or shall you walk that back?
>didn't threaten your wife with anything
You didn't threaten you would personally do it. It wasn't an illegal threat, but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped. I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
> hey use more than half of the things you mentioned.
You have to start over and make a cogent argument. I'm not following you. Zelensky is allowed to land in the US because the US allows it. Same with banking, defense, and anything else. If you declare your independence as a nation, you'll have to gain the same recognition, which will be very expensive. Or you can join another nation that has that recognition. Or you can stay a citizen of this nation. But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources.
> but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped.
That's not a threat, it's the law of the jungle. That's just the natural order of things, and it's why there's such a strong incentive to spend billions on defense. It's not even an abstract thing because we see it happening in real time.
> I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
The only thing I ask is you adhere to the HN site guidelines, which is we are here for debate. I called out your last reply not because it was offensive but because it degraded the thread by not providing anything to respond to, so it was thought-terminating. Our other thread got more substantive over replies, which is the ideal. If you have an argument, make it. Snark isn't needed, I've caught myself doing it too, so when you're called out on it just stop and move on.
I'm not bringing up your family to break decorum, I'm bringing it up as my actual argument for why you need to gladly pay taxes, and why you're not as independent as you think. The topic of this whole thread, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the case-in-point of that, so it's not even an abstract problem people face in the year 2025.
>But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources
Which brings me back to the double standard you present. The premise is Ukraine is independent, "but you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources."
So we come full circle. Either they're independent and needn't freeload off American taxpayers, or they're actually dependent. I am very happy with the execution of the former and pleased you've come to agree with my point.
That's not my premise. Ukraine isn't freeloading, we voted to give them money because we understand they are the frontline of defense against Russian aggression -- they are paying in blood.
What I'm more concerned about is your hypocrisy as a fellow citizen, where you seem to believe you are fiercely independent (and therefore shouldn't be expected to pay into the system) but conveniently ignore all the ways it benefits you and the comforts it brings.
... I pay into the system. That's what your sort of disingenuous argument leads to, I'm against funding Ukraine therefore you think this merits I must prove the case of the entire fucking tax system. You're horribly mistaken, de funding Ukraine is not going to lead to a libertarian utopia that you switched up to arguing against.
That is why your kids will eventually fight in World War 3, because you won't invest in a system to establish real peace globally by standing up to dictators who invade other countries.
It is not illegitimate in any way, and I think you are making a bad-faith argument.
American stands strong with Ukraine. The only Americans who have left the chat are those who were never American to begin with.
I admire that you put yourself in dangers way for what you think was right.
However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility. Your prescription is in the same vein as saying those worried about climate change should recycle more, when it is clear their utmost efforts would not make a dent in the global scheme of things. As such, no amount of motivated militia is going to make a dent in a war against an industrialized military.
Just come out and say I don't want to pay for to support Ukraine's war against Russia. Your opinion is valid and should be taken into account. However you don't get to dodge your responsibilities if the outcome doesn't go your way, just like a Democrat has to live with Trump's policies whether they like it or not. It's pathetic to try garnering sympathy with cage analogies.
Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.