Looks like you never listened to President Eisenhower's speech, warning us of the military-industrial complex. Here, I'll post it, just for you, because I like you
The relevant points of Eisenhower's speech in relation to this thread start at about 7:00, but the whole thing is worth watching. Lest anyone discount what Eisenhower is saying, we have here a man who served at the very top of his profession, a General of the Army, equivalent to a Field Marshal in the British, Russian, or German armies. Eisenhower served 8 relatively untarnished years as President, a record that has not been repeated since the end of his tenure of office.
Cheryl, I am not suggesting that you just "give up". I would never suggest that to you or anybody else. But sometimes, we have to deal with circumstances beyond our control. That's part of life. It's also possible that without that safety net, you can get yourself in real trouble. I'm obviously not familiar with your circumstances, but according to your profile, you have children at home part time. This is part of the public record. I'm sure you thought about this, but what if they become ill, and you aren't working?
I want to be very clear on what I'm saying here. I am not throwing this in your face for giggles (there is so much other stuff I can laugh at). What I am trying to say is that sometimes, some of us need help because we become involved in desperate situations through no fault of our own. And nobody should be ashamed to ask for that help.
Again, I've never said a true safety net shouldn't be there...for the disabled for instance. I just don't think that is what we have these days and I definitely think the republicans are the better group to make sure that it is a true safety net and not funding for abortions and birth control, etc... I'll have to look at Eisenhower's speech in a bit as it is too late, but that won't negate from the fact that the federal govt. was established primarily for defense and that is all the federal govt. should be taxing for. Well, perhaps for interstate roads too perhaps...but an argument could be made for that being part of defense too.
If you say that you think a safety net should be there, then there is little for us to bicker about. Do I think the Republicans would do a better job at constructing one? Not a chance. Everything the Republicans have said suggest that the want to take that safety net down and turn it over to the private sector. A case in point would be Bush's privatization plan for Social Security.
There is nothing to debate about...EVERYTHING that CAN possbily be in the hands of the private sector should be...however, S.S. is safe with either party as are the rest of the social programs. However, only one party will do its best to cut waste and programs that should not be covered by tax payers like abortion and that is the republican party which is really the democrat party now. Really, they haven't done enough either because they have moved too far left....have also let it go from a safety net to cover people who don't really need it and shouldn't have it. Recently saw a show on North Korea....people there are starving and resorting to eating tree bark and even eating each other....that is a total communist country with benevolent govt. controlling everything (oh and thanks to Obuma's watch, they are now up to six nukes, I believe...scary considering how crazy these rulers are)....we don't want that here. God is outlawed there too...what party is trying to take him away here...yes the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party. The only reason someone could not see how different these two parties are now from what they used to be is due to blind allegiance to a party...that is sad.
What items do you suggest should be in the private sector that are now in the public sector? I have no reason to believe that Social Security would be safe with the Republicans. Don't you remember that Bush tried to privatize Social Security in his second term? The "republican party which is really the democrat party now". You'll have to explain what this means, as I have no idea what you are trying to say. Then you make the quantum leap from Social Security to... North Korea! What?! I am not familiar with any party that is trying to outlaw God. Then you go on to the "the previous democrat party now the liberal socialist party". I have no idea what this means either.
Oddly enough, your last sentence makes sense. Yes, the two parties are different, and this has been noted. Both parties have moved to the right. As Bill Maher pungently puts it, the Democrats have moved into becoming a center-right party, and the Republicans have moved into an insane asylum. Maher's opinions are his own, and do not reflect mine. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that both parties have moved to the right.