Meaning: The quote by Craig Armstrong seems to express a sentiment of optimism and ambition regarding the ability to achieve seemingly contradictory goals. The statement suggests a belief that it is possible to achieve lower deficits while increasing spending, to have a more peaceful world while maintaining a strong military presence, and to have a cleaner environment without imposing strict restrictions on individual behaviors. Each of these assertions represents a complex and multifaceted challenge in the realms of economics, international relations, and environmental policy.

The first part of the quote, "Lower deficits but higher spending," touches upon a fundamental tension in economic policy. Typically, lower deficits are associated with reduced government spending, as deficits occur when expenses exceed revenues. However, the idea of achieving lower deficits while simultaneously increasing spending implies a belief that it is feasible to stimulate economic growth and invest in important social programs without exacerbating budget shortfalls. This notion has been a subject of debate among economists and policymakers, with differing perspectives on the potential trade-offs and consequences of such an approach.

The second part of the quote addresses the concept of pursuing "more peace with a bigger military that goes off and kills terrorists and whatnot." This reflects the idea of maintaining a strong military presence while also seeking to promote peace and security. The juxtaposition of a "bigger military" with the goal of peace introduces a complex discussion about the role of military power in international relations. It raises questions about the balance between defense capabilities and diplomatic efforts, as well as the ethical considerations surrounding the use of military force in the pursuit of peace and stability.

The final part of the quote, "A cleaner environment without forcing SUVs off the road," speaks to the challenge of addressing environmental issues without imposing drastic restrictions on individual behaviors or economic activities. This reflects the tension between environmental conservation and individual freedom, as well as the complexities of transitioning to more sustainable practices without unduly burdening certain industries or segments of the population. It also touches upon the broader debate about the role of regulation versus market-based approaches in achieving environmental goals.

In essence, the quote encapsulates a sense of optimism and aspiration for finding solutions to complex and seemingly contradictory societal challenges. It suggests a belief in the possibility of reconciling competing priorities and interests to achieve a balanced and harmonious outcome. However, it also invites critical examination of the practicality and feasibility of these aspirations, as well as the potential trade-offs and compromises that may be involved in pursuing such ambitious goals.

The sentiment expressed in the quote resonates with broader discussions about the intersection of policy, economics, and societal values. It serves as a reminder of the need for innovative thinking and collaboration in addressing the multifaceted challenges that confront contemporary societies. By acknowledging the complexities of these issues and embracing a spirit of optimism and ambition, it becomes possible to envision a future where seemingly contradictory goals can be reconciled and achieved in harmony.