The USA's budget deficits and trade deficits?

Question

How do you believe the US government (current or future) can resolve these two issue?

Also, why have they been ignored for so long?

Answer 1

Budget deficits: Too many people (and companies) have come to depend on Government handouts and it seems impossible that the Economy will ever get to the point where "normal" revenues (read: taxes) will ever exceed the committed payouts.  Why ... so long:  The situation hasn't been ignored.  But there is no motivation on leaders (who very/most-often get elected/re-elected based on how much pork they bring to their constituents) to take the painful steps necessary to address, let alone solve, the problems.  And those of us (ALL of us) benefitting from the various programs refuse to let OUR ox get gored.  

Trace deficits: The biggest single element of the deficit is the cost of foreign oil, but we have also grown used to getting low-cost manufactured goods from overseas, and retailers have gotten used to the profits they make from lower-priced foreign goods, so - again - there is no motivation to address the "problem" of deficits, since foreigners invest those dollars back into the U.S. economy which, though problematic, is still the strongest market in the World, thanks to our intense desire to consume as much as we possibly can.

So, who is left to make all those horrible (though probably correct) decisions?  YOU??

Answer 2

The ultimate solution will be to default on the national debt.  That will occur when the interest on the national debt exceeds our gross national product and there is no way to pay the interest, much less the principal.

Answer 3

Its not so much a problem of "paying it off" as it is not spending a shitload on **** we dont need. IE 250 MIL for a bear traking experiment in montana when oil is ******* 5 dollars a gallon. Dont get me started on the IRS....

But yea, the less we spend the less the deficit is, therein the stronger dollar.  

Answer 4

I watched an interview Bill Moyers did with a Boston University professor. I forget the professor's name. He just wrote a book. It was on PBS Friday night. The BU professor made the argument that all the Presidents are imperialistic meaning that government expands under them and that's essentially why they seek office. I'm a little off here but close to what I believe he was getting at. Government expanded under both Reagan and Bush even though if they were conservative then government should have contracted. Reagan billed himself as a believer of small government but his actions showed the complete opposite. The deficit grew substantially under him. The deficit causes inflation, the money that we have is worth less. My father believes this to be true as well and he's been paying attention to politics and government my entire life. He's very smart and intelligent. The U.S. doesn't make much anymore. We have to import most everything to keep with our consumption. This was also discussed in the PBS show with Bill Moyers. If you are interested then see if you can find it online. I think you will find it fascinating and it should give you a greater insight into what is going on. I didn't find it particularly slanted. Bill Moyers leans heavily to the left but this BU professor says that he's conservative.  

Answer 5

trading tarriffs and removing tax breaks for the wealty.  was working for clinton, well except for the tarriffs part since he signed nafta and all that "goodness"