CAN YOU DO $1 TRILLION ON DENFENSE...AND BE CONSERVATIVE?

[warrior1972]

Washington (CNN)—Pledging to spend more money on the military was once an easy way for Republican presidential candidates to showcase their conservative bona fides.

Not anymore.



The feud among Republicans over what it means to be a national security conservative was on clear display at this week's presidential debate, where Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator known for his libertarian leanings and non-interventionist foreign policy views, dug into Florida Sen. Marco Rubio over his plans to increase the defense budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years without explaining how he would pay for the increase.

"How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures?" Rand Paul asked his opponent at Tuesday's Republican debate. "You cannot be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going to pay for."

Rubio retorted swiftly: "We can't even have an economy if we're not safe."




The heated exchange exposed the fault lines in the GOP as conservatives grapple with a world that seems increasingly in turmoil and a country weighed down by mounting debt.

It also raises questions about the definition of a conservative national security policy, where two of the ideology's traditional tenets -- a strong U.S. military and reduced government spending -- collide. Rubio and Rand are each trying to claim the mantle of being the "true conservative" in an appeal to GOP primary voters, even though they take sharply opposing views on the issue.

READ: Takeaways from the Republican debate

Both senators' approaches have footholds in American conservatism, and which one ends up resonating more with voters could be as much a product of the current international security environment as ideological imperatives.

Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, described "a very difficult balancing act" for Republicans between the instinct for fiscal restraint and the deep-rooted conservative tradition of a strong national defense.

"There's something in my mind worrisome and off in declaring what the authentic conservative position is," Berkowitz said. "The better way to characterize the tradition is really an unending debate between these two sides."




us.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/marco-rubio-rand-paul-conservative-debate-military-spending/index.html

[Sailor]

Each of these guys is marking out his territory, building his campaign platform just as Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley are doing on the Dem side.

At this point I expect each to make statements that conflict with each other but both Paul and Rubio have points I agree with and Mr Berkowitz is quite correct, it is difficult to maintain a balance between the principal tenants of conservatism and not keep the Fed's printing presses running 24/7/365 as they have been for the last decade or so so that government can continue to give everyone everything they want.

Berkowitz said. "The better way to characterize the tradition is really an unending debate between these two sides." Absolutely right, and in this case debate is a good thing I'm thinking.

Last night's attacks in Paris underscore one thing ... trouble is coming to these shores. Can we afford to NOT increase spending on Homeland Security in certain areas (FBI and border security for example) and the military?

I think History is repeating itself but with different villans and we face the same choices FDR and the Congress faced in the late 1930's, what to do and how much to spend to prepare for the storm? The military we used to defend ourselves and win WWII was designed and laid down in the late 30's.

[101ABN]

"If you think defending America is expensive, try NOT defending it." ~ Sen. Ted Cruz

[dustdevil28]

A fair enough question. Conservatives have always been for lower spending and for a smaller government. The military has been a consistent exception where most on the right will vote for a candidate which promises more spending for a stronger, and bigger military. Can you be purely conservative while ramping up spending on the military? It depends on what your goals are. Reagans was to defeat the Soviet Union by forcing them to match spending. I'm not sure what Rubio's increase in spending will achieve. My hope is its geared towards escalating the fight against radical islam.

Over the last 8 years this country has been led by a President who believes in reducing American influence in the middle east, instead using soft measures to empower our allies in the region to fight against extremists. This view is championed by most who saw George W. Bush's policy as a overreach, and one which created more terrorists then it actually killed. Sadly, I think today we are seeing by disengaging with the middle east, and relying on weak partners to carry the fight, we have allowed extremists to regroup and gain strength they did not have when Obama took office in 2009.

Over the last 8 years this country has been led by a President who was elected by people who listened and moaned about the cost of war, but have remained silent on the ineffectiveness of the Obama stimulus packages, and the record 39 months of 7% unemployment rate under his administration. Amazingly enough as Paul Ryan recently announced a budget deal which would increase spending for our military the same idiots continued the line of cutting spending for the military in favor of "investing in America." Under Obama the national debt has doubled... doubled, under just one Presidents two terms in office. While some of that cost went to the military, one should assume all the other spending was for "investing in America" and yet today who can say America is better because of these investments?

Whoever comes into office next will have a mess on their hands. A doubled national debt, and the reality military spending will need to be increased to counter the threat posed by Islamic extremist groups.

End rant.

-DD