>>3339>Do you feel like that is a concern for you?
Yes and no. It's something to keep an eye on, but, I don't think it requires boots on the ground, so to speak.
I like a "slap the hand" type of approach. When a kid reaches for the cookie jar, you don't sit on him for the next hour. A simple slapping of the hand suffices.
I'd say, essentially, utilize our air superiority when it comes to such things, and otherwise leave it alone. Won't win hearts and minds, but, it should at least stop people from hitting our embassies and assets in the area.
Of course, I'm not a military strategist. I can't really say with any kind of certainty.
It's just my more natural inclination I guess. Trying to force people to be good doesn't work, so I lean towards just punishing them when they do bad. >Maybe I could ask, of all the places you might have spent an extra half trillion dollars, did you have a specific reason you chose here rather than say, putting some of that towards free public college or keeping the charitable deduction?
Yes. Infrastructure in the United States is really quite terrible. I think that this is also one of the best options to take for a further increase
in economic growth, given that a more efficient and reliable infrastructure is pretty significant for healthy businesses.
Education is hit-and-miss as far as predicted effects goes, and charity is often just a matter of throwing it at interest groups who spend more time advertising than actually helping.
Mostly, though, it's one of the few fields I'm a little familiar with, and so most comfortable making a call on. >But as best I understand keeping the farm subsides would also be a more right leaning choice.
Keep in mind, that's mainly because of the regions where the right gets a lot of its votes.
My reasoning is mostly my dealing with farmers. The ones I know don't really worry about it at all, since the way they see it, either the crop goes, and they get money, or it fails, and they get money. Some don't even plant, sometimes. Usually for fairly sensible reasons. Predictions of weather and seasons, expenses being not worth the investment. But, it makes it look a tad complacent to me.
This isn't one I know a ton on the economic side, though. It's pretty much only based on my personal interactions with the farmers in my area. They're far too relaxed about it all. Seem almost bored, honestly. Bored people probably shouldn't be getting subsidies, I think.
This said, though, I do not think farm subsidies are a right wing principle
. I think it's more a side effect of allies, if that makes sense.>, did you think increased naval production is particular important for the country?
Yes. Naval assets are our most used military asset as I understand it, both in terms of force projection, security, logistics, and policing.
Of all military investments, naval ships makes the most sense to me. Especially considering the nation's position, geographically.
I think you can make a decent argument for maintaining national security while drastically decreasing military buildup and manpower across the board, so long as you maintain a powerful enough navy.
After all, you don't need to fight an enemy army if they can never make it to shore.
It's one of the things where I wish there was a bit more information or exploration on as far as the options in the budget thing. I feel like I could easily cut the airforce in half, and the Army nearly entirely, if the Navy could cover the gaps effectively as I believe they can.
Granted, this is meaning less long-term sitting on stuff, more temporary expeditions and defensive actions. But, being separated from every other major power by water would leave me to think focusing on that aspect'd be the best way to go.