"Effectively" in your opinion. Not in everyone's opinion. Some changes might be more effective, others won't. But there will still be way too much money being spent. That's a FACT.
Well, given the novus ordo seclorum, America won't be spending on defending or influencing 2/3 of the world now. That should allow for some budget cutting. Ukraine sure won't be need $100b this year.
We were discussing the military budget. The military budget won't be cut. Programs that assist poor and middle class people are definitely being targeted and cuts that inflict more hardship could be successful. I'm sure you'll be quite happy with harm befalling your fellow Americans. You don't get social security or military benefits that could be affected? You'd be fine if you were subjected to cuts personally so long as others you hate also face cuts?
I don't think that the military budget should be cut now that about $1 trillion in annual DOD supplemental USIC soft-power world domination "capacity building" funds have already been put on the chopping block. We might need more hard-power.
I heard that China is very happy that the United States is foolishly reducing it's soft power around the world and is aggressively stepping in to fill the void.
d0l0ld = a weaker US on the world stage.
Proof that his claim of projecting strength is BS. He projects weakness.
Minus: I'm sure it has something to do with "effectiveness".
I'm sure that is an ineffective strategy.
Copilot: the shift from "soft power" to "hard power" is a significant change in foreign policy. Soft power relies on diplomacy, cultural influence, and economic aid to persuade and attract other nations, while hard power uses military force and economic sanctions to compel and coerce.
The saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" fits well in this context. It suggests that a more diplomatic and cooperative approach (soft power) can be more effective in achieving goals than a confrontational and forceful approach (hard power).
Recent discussions highlight concerns that Trump's emphasis on hard power may undermine the U.S.'s ability to inspire and persuade other nations, potentially leading to strained relationships and decreased global influence. [end]
He is the most incompetent person to ever hold the position.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the story of an American Parsifal in the Fisher King story....
ReplyDeletebtw - That's a "figurative" analogy, not a "literal one". The holy grail is not literally lost somewhere in the Pentagon.
"Pete Hegseth is going to stop that".
ReplyDeleteHe isn't. He isn't even going to try.
Victor Davis Hanson = completely full of sh!t.
Money might be spent differently on different things. The military budget will NOT go down.
You think it will?
I think it will stop going into obsolete NATO weapon systems
DeleteThat is definitely a "no".
DeleteThat is definitely a statement of soon to be confirmed FACT.
Delete...Cuz no one would be rightfully upset if the current money was being spent effectively.
Delete"Effectively" in your opinion. Not in everyone's opinion. Some changes might be more effective, others won't. But there will still be way too much money being spent. That's a FACT.
ReplyDeleteWell, given the novus ordo seclorum, America won't be spending on defending or influencing 2/3 of the world now. That should allow for some budget cutting. Ukraine sure won't be need $100b this year.
DeleteMinus: That should allow for some budget cutting.
ReplyDeleteThere won't be any. That is my official prophecy.
Not even from Social Security? What a coward!
DeleteWe were discussing the military budget. The military budget won't be cut. Programs that assist poor and middle class people are definitely being targeted and cuts that inflict more hardship could be successful. I'm sure you'll be quite happy with harm befalling your fellow Americans. You don't get social security or military benefits that could be affected? You'd be fine if you were subjected to cuts personally so long as others you hate also face cuts?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the military budget should be cut now that about $1 trillion in annual DOD supplemental USIC soft-power world domination "capacity building" funds have already been put on the chopping block. We might need more hard-power.
Delete...which is why the budget "whole" is always more important than any single individual budget "part/ category".
DeleteI'm sure it has something to do with "effectiveness".
DeleteI heard that China is very happy that the United States is foolishly reducing it's soft power around the world and is aggressively stepping in to fill the void.
ReplyDeleted0l0ld = a weaker US on the world stage.
Proof that his claim of projecting strength is BS. He projects weakness.
Minus: I'm sure it has something to do with "effectiveness".
I'm sure that is an ineffective strategy.
Copilot: the shift from "soft power" to "hard power" is a significant change in foreign policy. Soft power relies on diplomacy, cultural influence, and economic aid to persuade and attract other nations, while hard power uses military force and economic sanctions to compel and coerce.
The saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" fits well in this context. It suggests that a more diplomatic and cooperative approach (soft power) can be more effective in achieving goals than a confrontational and forceful approach (hard power).
Recent discussions highlight concerns that Trump's emphasis on hard power may undermine the U.S.'s ability to inspire and persuade other nations, potentially leading to strained relationships and decreased global influence. [end]