“No it wasn’t paid. It was a deliberate scheme to defraud. Now that you find the money is gone you accuse me of stealing it from you.”
Yes, it was paid. That you and other taxpayers borrowed it so you could buy things you wanted without being charged for it does not change the fact that it was paid for, in advance, by money from the Department of Defense.
Now you and other taxpayers refuse to reimburse the fund because you still want to spend money on other things. That is theft. You borrowed the money and you refuse to repay it because you - generic you, not you personally since I’m sure you don’t like what the government does with money either - are a thief.
“Yes, it was paid. That you and other taxpayers borrowed it so you could buy things you wanted without being charged for it does not change the fact that it was paid for, in advance, by money from the Department of Defense.”
I obviously disagree with you, but you set up another interesting point that bothers me.
You seem to draw out two distinctions - classes of citizens - 1. In the dept of defense, 2. outside the department of defense.
The more the military sets itself apart from the citizenry (a huge mistake, in my opinion) the easier it will be to subdue that same citizenry for some perceived slight, like the one you (quite incorrectly in my view) laid out.
Point is - it doesn’t have to be true - it just has to be seen by a large enough portion of the department of defense to be in their best interest. This was unthinkable in my time in the military, but it bothers me because I don’t see it as unthinkable as it once was.....slippery slope there.