"Strong dollar" = "none for you"It shouldn't be hard to automatically translate these policy rumblings ...
After running up a huge military expense through invasion & conquest, the dollar starts to slide, and the White House then sees a justification for not spending tax money on tax-payers. In computational semantics, that only repesents a few dependencies, or productions, to resolve.
Note there's no reason to believe the White House is particularly interested in reducing the deficit or strengthening the dollar. Because, if it was, it wouldn't have expensively invaded yet another country.
The internal policy is to allow increasing impoverishment of the majority, strengthen the ruling class, but not so much that the majority stops spending heavily on goods & services, nor so much that the majority rebels.
The best road to a meek and impoverished population is reduced revenue spending on the majority, and increased spending on the wealthy and powerful. Who often pay no tax at all. It is their working model, that the ruling class will profit from militarization of the local empire (the US) and increased spending on police & jails etc. And this goes hand-in-hand with increased spending on militarization of the global empire.
None of this is in the news, but it's in policy papers, and is really obvious when you look at what is done, not what is said.
The important issue is the auomatic weighing, collecting and presenting of this evidence. And revealing the model behind it.