^ this is what n00bs say because they find it easy to paint all politicians with a broad brush
there are obvious and huge differences between the two parties
one his big government, one is small government
don't let Bush fool you; most Republicans nerf government, he just didn't
No, it's not. It's what got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's BS which actually extended it. Did you fall asleep in history class?
The country has to be protected by the government, which means a military is needed. It's in the Constitution. The military is funded by the government, but the things used by the military are created by the private sector; about 100,000 jobs are going to be lost due to the this funding cut, jobs specifically in Ohio and New Jersey.
Actually I know what I'm talking about. I've done a lot of research and have actually talked to the people running for governor in my state.(Erlich, O'malley) If republicans were for small government why haven't any of them actually tried to make it smaller for the past 80 years.
Like I said before, they talk different games but end up doing the same(basically). Their main differences are on small irrelavent things. The problem is they both have the wrong starting point for how our government should be run
Since you want to bring up the constitution let's talk about the constitution.
our founders were against a standing military and were for malitia. Why? Because if you have a monster of a military yo're GOING to use it.
Article 2 section 8(The Powers of congress):
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
This means that they can't give money to an army for more then 2 years at a time. Which basically means you can't have a standing military because they would have to give it money for more then 2 years.
PS: MY arguments would be worded way better if I wasn't about to go to sleep