The neoconservative foreign policy advocates using power as an instrument to expand democracy, liberal values, etc. Calls for U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict reflected neoconservative goals.
I'm not advocating anything like that. In fact, I repeatedly opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria and Libya, as no meaningful U.S. interests were involved.
My focus is not expanding U.S. military guarantees to non-NATO members and I don't support expansion of NATO. Instead, I believe there should be greater security cooperation and integration among existing NATO members. Moreover, I'm suggesting that it would be better for U.S. military strength to be maintained near current levels rathern than slashed to pre-WW II levels in some areas. I am not calling for any kind of new arms race, though I believe the ongoing managed retreat from space-related R&D is short-sighted.
Finally, I favor medium-term fiscal consolidation. That effort cannot fall mainly or wholly on the Defense budget. Mandatory spending programs will need to be reformed to become fiscally sustainable. Some degree of tax hikes will likely also be needed to bridge financing gaps.
Well, I respect the restraint you showed in your response...kudos.
As for your points, I have no problem with more co-operation with other allies but I am TOTALLY opposed to more militarism and higher deficits for military spending.
America has troops in over 150 countries, props up corrupt regimes, bombs other countries at will (which is a technical act-of-war), gives away tens of billions in arms to whomever it wishes and has caused tremendous death and misery (directly and indirectly) to many countries that it decided to ram democracy down their throats/change governments they don't like.
Not only is it wrong, hypocritical (Obama freaks out about a referendum in Crimea but embraces an illegal coup in Ukraine) and causing much hatred against Americans (for drone strikes, supporting horrible regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Gitmo, etc.)...it is (partly) bankrupting the United States.
The stock market is being indirectly supported by the Fed 'printing' money out of thin air and 'artificially' suppressing interest rates (the latter also 'artificially' propping up the real estate market). Unemployment is stuck on 'lousy' (and if you take the participation rate into account, it's stuck on 'awful'). The deficit is over $500 billion and (according to the CBO) is due to rise again in a few years - and that is at present interest rates.
Just today, the Fed is talking about raising the prime rate again sooner rather then later...and when they do that, the deficit will skyrocket. For every 1% the prime rises, apparently the interest on the national debt goes up $200 billion per year. So if the prime returns to what it was a few years ago (say, 6.25%), that would (apparently) mean $600 billion more added to the deficit on interest payments alone. That would put it back over $1 trillion per year again.
Plus, what will happen to the real estate/auto industries once these incredibly low mortgage/financing rates are gone?
And even though with the proposed defense cuts, America will still dwarf both China and Russia's military budgets combined...you are suggesting spending more on national defense?
No offense, but this is fiscal irresponsibility...not that your 'group' is alone in this.
The Keynesians want huge deficits for economic stimulus, the liberals want huge deficits are enormous social programs and the conservatives/Neo-cons want huge deficits for increases in the already gigantic military budget.
DOES ANYONE EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AMERICA ANY LONGER - other then a few Austrian schoolers?
IMO, what goes on in other countries is NONE of America's business other then wars between countries (not inside them) and major acts of genocide/human suffering.
If America spent 1/2 what it does now on her military, she would still have a military that towers over any other and would be completely capable of defending her shores with EASE (which is all a military should be funded to do in peace time, IMO).
But if Neo-cons want a strong military for decades to come, then the economy/budget must be the primary focus - a war against unemployment and fiscal irresponsibility...not hypothetical/potential adversaries.
Finally, if conservatives want a gigantic military so America can police the world...then - with respect - the least they could do is come up with a way to pay for it without bankrupting America.
And, IMO, 'just take it from other programs' is not going to do it. America no longer has the economic strength to do that.
Reagan's America did, 2014 America does not.