Why is it that republicans are so against "big" government yet somehow justify a big military. I've never understood that. To me, it's a huge oxymoron. Isn't the military an extension of the government? And if so, why be ok for military but not education, health care, and other social issues? I seriously would like to understand.

More importantly, why are they against welfare (giving money to poor people) but have no problem with subsidies to airlines, oil companies, and huge tax breaks (giving money to rich people)?

Don't you all flood the site with your answers now.

I guess mainly because the government ALWAYS had the military. Our country was started because of it.

Other programs are not necessarily essential for a country. Companies could run Social Security and Medicare waay more efficiently than the government ever could. The military is one facet of this country that could not run without the government, just because of funding.

Any Republican who says anything about smaller government and voted for Bush twice or any of the Republicans in the 2000-2006 Congresses has no leg to stand on whatsoever.

This is not true. In fact, the US was created without a standing army and relied on mostly volunteer militias for national defense, even through the Civil War. The military as we know it did not really come about until post-WWII. Eisenhauer presciently warned about the current state of the military industrial complex upon leaving office.

The US spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world COMBINED. And the vast majority of that spending goes to private contractors, not military personnel or soldiers.

[quote[Companies could run Social Security and Medicare waay more efficiently than the government ever could.[/quote]

It seems to me like most of the Republicans who are such big defenders of corporations know the least about them. Corporations efficient? Ha!

Btw, the whole point of creating a national Social Security and Medicare program was because the private sector had FAILED so miserably at providing security and medical care for the poor and middle class.

It's not the private sector that's failed; it's the weird marriage of government's wasteful spending and corporate greed. Medicare is the biggest health insurance provider in the world; it is also the reason why healthcare costs have been growing out of control and why the poorer people who are out of work cannot afford their own health insurance.

As for the original question, the main reason is that the Constitution does not give Federal Government a charter to provide "free" health care for all. Of course, I use the word free very loosely here, because it obviously won't be. Incidentally, have either Clinton or Obama put a price tag on their plans in terms of increase to the payroll taxes?

i believe we spend too much on the military. Remember i'm one of the few republicans that wasnt for the iraq war. I dont like nation building, which we are essentially doing in iraq.

Beeble, what you say is true regarding militia's. However, though we did have the milita, I might add that in times of war the country did create a standing army usually by conscripting the milita into it. Like in the Civil War. Reliance on militia's was one of the things that did the south in, like Georgia, who often refused to share weapons and troop supplies.
There was also a standing army in the Spanish American war. One of the reasons for the poor performance during that war was because the country had to develop an army while fighitng a war at the same time. WWI and II both saw a standing army.

My point is that the militia was certainly heroic, post Revolutionary War, it really wasn't much of a fighting force and the country often relied on it to our detriment. One of the reasons for the need for a standing army.



The private sector did not fail in providing social security. They paid people wages. If you chose to not fund a retirement for yourself, so be it. It wasn't the corporations job to fund it for you.

Of course corporations are not perfectly efficient, as that is impossible. However, when comparing corporations to government, which could obviously be inferred from Casey's statements, corporations come off looking relatively efficient.

If a corporation is inefficient, they go out of business, unless there is some prying on the part of the government, which I hope they do not do for Ford. If the government is inefficient, well they just raise taxes or borrow money, no matter the solvency of the government.

The US never lost a war with its militia. It was not until the military industrial complex era that Eisenhower warned us about that the US lost a war.



So far both Republicans in this thread have ignored the points about health care and your support and enabling the trillions of dollars in debt and waste the last seven years. I guess because you have absolutely no credibility at all on that issue, do you.

The other thing is that republicans argue government should not interfere in the lives of americans in a big way, yet they have no problems denying civil rights to gays. When Bush was giving his little state of the union last monday, every time he said "every american" I kept adding "except gays" at the end. lol

Yup. That's my point. They are hypocrites with no more "small government" credibility left, if they ever had it at all.

We lost the War of 1812. One of the reasons being the use of a militia.

What civil right has a Republican ever denied to a gay? If you mean marriage, gays are allowed to marry, just like all American's that meet age requirements and just like all American's, they are not allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Conservatives can and did use the exact same reasoning to justify anti-race-mixing laws. "You can marry whoever you want, as long as it's not someone of a different race." Everyone has the exact same rights (no one, black or white, can mix races), so what's the problem?

But I wasn't referring to gay marriage in my comments, but rather the entirety of your utterly meaningless attempts to play the small government card.

Don't you ever feel, you know, silly for making these kinds of arguments? I mean, you can't really believe this, can you?

Speaking of the military industrial complex, today Susan Eisenhower, daughter of Dwight, endorsed Obama.



He not only predicted the modern military machine, but also the Bush administration!

This would be the guy that accused you of "moving the goal posts" in a discussion about Iraq and once accused Obama of "war-mongering." Republicans lack an irony gene.

He is right. Republican's tend not to argue to deny gays civil rights, rather, they argue the definition of marriage. In the eyes of the church and it's religious sacraments, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That's where the whole argument stems from.

Of course, many religious people also tend to discriminate against gays, and refuse to even allow civil unions, and the act of homosexuality in general.

Think about it, the real mess here is that marriage is intertwined with religion. Any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination can perform a marriage and sign the legal documents making it official.

Think about that!

You don't have to be a local official, you can simply be a religious official, and that is enough to perform and sign the marriage into being. What happened to separation of church and state?

The fact is, marriage began as a religious sacrament, and crossed over to norm of society, thus the definition is all messed up, and we have big issues because of it.

That's bullshit. They regularly argue specifically that allowing gays to marry would undermine society by undermining marriage - and yet they have yet to propose a Constitutional amendment banning divorse. They argue that gays are unfit for parenthood. They argue for the banning of gay sex acts. They argue against protection of homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace.

They couch it in "the definition of marriage" argument just like they couch anti-abortion in the "fertilized eggs are human beings" argument to hide their intentions and make their positions more palatable.

I understand the argument completely; that's not what he said, though. He made the ridiculous argument that the law didn't prevent them from getting married, it only prevented them from getting married to each other and therefore it wasn't discriminatory. That's what I was laughing at -- the idea that this viewpoint could be seen as not being discrimination.

Even so, your argument isn't much better, Eagle, even though you may have framed it a bit more legally. If a law discriminates, then it does -- just admit it. Don't go saying it doesn't deny civil rights to gays when it obviously does.

You're trying to do the old legal loophole thing. That's like saying "We don't discriminate against women, we just discriminate against people who may get pregnant." The only people who want to marry someone of the same sex are gay, and the law prevents people from marrying those of the same sex, so therefore the only people who are discriminated against are gays.



Of course; that is understood. But it's quite a step to say "therefore our religious laws should be enforced by the government."

Oh, and not all religious groups agree with that. There are plenty that are doing gay marriages where it is legal.




No, there is a difference. If the law said that ONLY religious people can do it, then there is a problem. Or if the government said they COULDN'T marry anyone, then that would be a problem too (it's the distinction between the "establishment" clause and the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment.

It's like religious schools. There is nothing wrong with that as long as no one is required to go.

Well, hey, I think the laws and beliefs are archaic. As to what Beeble said, I don't doubt he's right, and many people user the 'definition of marriage' as a thin veil to discriminate against gays in any way possible.

I just wanted to open the discussion of how intertwined marriage is with religion, and therefore how intertwined religion is with the law in this case. I really think that's the main problem.

Personally, I think the answer is:

1) Remove the word marriage from the constitution and all laws. Replace it with civil union, give all the rights and privileges currently received by married couples to civil union couples. Let anyone who wants one, be able to get one, homosexuals, lesbians, heterosexuals. Let religions have their sacrament, let it be separate. Done and done.

Alternatively, use the word "marriage" instead. It's much simpler, and describes exactly what it is better than a "civil union." Other than that, I agree with you, and that's all we want.

I mean, why should we let the grinches who only want the word to mean what they want it to mean win?

That's all well and good, but the fact is that conservative Republicans also oppose gay civil unions as well as gay marriage. They also oppose gays adopting children. The original point, that Republicans do not want to deny gays any civil rights, is ABSURD.

I would say because otherwise you are letting government trivialize a religious sacrament. And while I don't agree with everything that sacrament entitles, I don't think government really should be able to just modify it in any way it wants?

I just think the above is a better solution.