1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
bearhunter [10]
3 years ago
10

Explain why a government budget is very difficult to balance

History
2 answers:
kondaur [170]3 years ago
8 0

Answer: It's a lot of money too balance, so therefore, not all of it can balance out in the end.. A lot too read in the explanation, but well worth your time if you're really wanting to learn more about why the Government's budget can't balance out.

Explanation: Almost everyone has a simple cure for America’s stubborn budget deficits: faster economic growth. The Trump administration is particularly keen on this. It argues that its proposed tax reductions and regulatory cuts will accelerate economic growth and shrink the deficits. No doubt faster growth would help. But a more realistic appraisal is that, even with accelerated growth, huge gaps would remain between government spending and taxes.  As the White House presents its first full budget (segments were released earlier), this is worth emphasizing. It suggests that only unpopular tax increases and spending cuts will bring the budget close to balance. There’s no magic in faster growth. Indeed, the focus on speeding up economic growth may distract attention from the harder questions of what government should do and who should pay for it. Not just Medicaid and food stamps, but Social Security, other programs and higher taxes should also be on the table.  No one denies that U.S. economic growth lags post-World War II trends. From 1950 to 2016, the economy grew an average of 3.2 percent annually, reports the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But growth has dropped to about 2 percent annually since 2010. Though this one percentage point difference in growth rates sounds small, it isn’t. In an $18 trillion economy, one percentage point of output is worth an extra $180 billion. That’s forgone income that could be split between the government and private households.  In its latest forecast, the CBO projects that the economy will grow at only a 1.8 percent annual rate from 2017 to 2027. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has argued that the administration’s policies could boost this to 3 percent, roughly equaling the postwar average. Many economists are skeptical, because slower growth stems from two hard-to-change trends: 1) the massive retirement of baby-boomers, which reduces the workforce; and 2) weak productivity gains — businesses are struggling to become more efficient.  A new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded that restoring 3 percent annual growth would be enormously difficult, though not impossible. In a press briefing, Marc Goldwein of the CRFB said the economy would have to revert to its 1990s performance, with stable economic policies, widespread technological advances and high rates of immigration.  Still, let’s assume for argument’s sake that the economy hits 3 percent annual growth. How does this affect the budget? Although it’s good news, it’s less than you might think. Buried in the CBO’s annual report on the budget outlook are estimates of how shifts in economic conditions affect the budget. Crude calculations indicate that attaining 3 percent economic growth might reduce budget deficits by $3 trillion over a decade.  That’s a lot of money, even by Washington standards. Still, it’s only about a third of the $9 trillion increase in federal debt — the cumulative total of annual budget deficits — estimated over the same decade. The message here is not that economic growth is bad. It is that even using optimistic assumptions, faster growth by itself won’t eliminate deficits. The fundamental choice remains: Either we tolerate huge deficits indefinitely or we decide which taxes to raise and which programs to cut.

Mumz [18]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

People are happy to take taxpayers dollars, but they don't want to give ... a simple solution to this anticipated problem: Keep government small.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Match each term with its correct definition.
fiasKO [112]

Answer:

prophet: a religious figure......

bedouin: the act of being obedient....

nomadic: moving from place to place......

3 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best states an interpretation of the Second Amendment?
deff fn [24]

Answer:

There should be no limits on owning and using guns.

Explanation:

The Second Amendment was added to the constitution to protect people's right to keep and bear arms and the government's right to establish a Militia for the defense of the nation. Therefore, "There should be no limits on owning and using guns" is the statement that best interprets the statute because the statute is not specific enough, it can be broadly understood that since people have the right to own arms for self-defense, they also have the right to use them when there is a threat to their security.

The amendment states: <em>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, </em><em>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</em>

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
He invaded Mexico and defeated the Aztecs.
mrs_skeptik [129]

Answer: Hernán Cortés

Explanation: Hernán Cortés was a Spanish conquistador, or conqueror, best remembered for conquering the Aztec empire in 1521 and claiming Mexico for Spain. He also helped colonize Cuba and became a governor of New Spain

6 0
3 years ago
Why did Greek culture overrule Roman culture?
shepuryov [24]

the greek took their time in culture and philosophy

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did President Coolidge's use of the phrase "any system of injustice " help his argument for tax reform ?
mafiozo [28]

President Coolidge served as the 30th president of the United States.

<h3> President Coolidge and Tax Reforms</h3>

President Coolidge was well known for his tax reforms. He argued that higher taxes do not  always mean higher tax revenues.  He believed that taxes can constrict economic activity, leaving less profit and income to tax.

    According to Coolidge, extremely high tax rates produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for the country, and also because they are wrong.

    President Coolidge understood  that he could not finance the country and  cannot improve social conditions, through any system of injustice.

Learn more about President Coolidge at brainly.com/question/1799809

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What occurs during a silent trade? A. money is exchanged B. items are borrowed and then returned C. speech is limited to discuss
    6·2 answers
  • How did L'Ouverture's revolution benefit the United States?
    7·2 answers
  • Fill in the blank with the correct
    10·1 answer
  • Hammurabi displayed his code on a pillar so that everyone gets these laws compare Hammurabi's pillar to a modern-day structure t
    12·1 answer
  • What types of philosophy was there during the Middle Ages
    5·1 answer
  • The executive branch has the responsibility of (1 point)
    7·2 answers
  • When ____ took control of Spain in 1808, it represented a break in the direct line of royal authority in Spain and in the Americ
    12·1 answer
  • What was a result of Gibbons v. Ogden?
    8·2 answers
  • Anyone know history
    10·1 answer
  • Answers will get brainliest
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!