The later without question. A standing army encourage the state to start wars by providing them access to troops on a constant basis, while a welfare state requires large amounts of taxation and encourages government dependence and growth.
Okay, then here's a third option: Go away.
Was there a time in our country when we had no welfare state and no standing army? Do we now have a huge welfare state and standing army?
you posted :
those aren't the only options. hence, false dichotomy.
Who cares it they're not the only options? I don't get your point.
Our country started out with extremely minimal government, now we have a huge government and both liberals and neocons are responsible for it, libs because of the huge welfare state and neoncons because of the huge military. The question is, would you be willing to sacrifice your interest if the other side did for a much smaller government or not. Does that really sound like that ridiculous of a question to you?
We did get through WW2 pretty well without a huge standing military beforehand, don't you believe we could do it again?
Dude, you don't get to change the premise of the op...you picked the "a huge standing military and huge welfare state" answer.No I'm against Progressive policies that kill job creation, drive off capital investment and lead to more Americans being dependent on welfare