Where is America headed in the next 5-6 years?

Hey there!

I was looking through the threads to see if anyone was talking about long-term forecasts on this part of the forum, but I couldn't find anything. Since I'm pretty much a total amateur when it comes to economics, I wanted to ask the experts here: where do you guys think America and its economy will be in 5 or 6 years from now?

thx!

It all depends. If we attempt to move past this crisis by simply hiking up tax revenue, then we are truly in trouble.

If the solution lies in cutting government spending, then there is a way out.

Gregory Williams7 said:It all depends. If we attempt to move past this crisis by simply hiking up tax revenue, then we are truly in trouble.

If the solution lies in cutting government spending, then there is a way out.

Exactly.
We need to squeeze The Administration to the absolute limit until they cut those perks. Spending hasn't really been touched, yet they've introduced new taxes. You can't expect some people to sacrifice while others feast on the fruits of everyone else's labor. My take? Purchasing power will drop by 50%, while the "elite" continue to flaunt themselves over the rest of us, making excuses like "it's an imported crisis, we didn't see it coming."
It’s just the left and right swapping seats... laughing all the way to the bank while they fleece the citizens.
Theoretically, if we implemented RADICAL AUSTERITY for two or three years, we'd be stabilized and looking at an economic boom. But for that to work, Joe Biden would need to live on a janitor's wage. Only then could we justify a modest 25% tax on essential costs. Leave the "extra" money in the private sector to stimulate reinvestment and job creation. Stop choking the economy with taxes that only serve to fund bureaucracy. Lower sales tax instead of raising it. Cut those redundant government jobs that exist solely for their own sake, because no real business can sustain that kind of burden.
Ensure people have access to basic food and medicine. We have grain reserves for a reason.
Economic recovery isn't about high consumption; it's about saving and production.
Proposals for devaluation and inflation are just new ways to swindle ordinary people.
Organized crime and extortion will inevitably rise.
We aren't just looking at a bubble bursting; we're looking at bankruptcy.☕

I read somewhere that 78,000 people were laid off this year—now the media is claiming another 50,000 are on the chopping block. If you believe the news... then those folks stop contributing to the treasury and start living off it for a while. Add wage cuts to the mix, and you've got even less money flowing back into the system. You can't fix a deficit just by slapping on crisis taxes—it's a chain reaction caused by falling consumer spending.
That drop in spending—along with plenty of other factors—eventually starves the budget all over again.
So, our options are to pile on more debt or sell everything off (at a massive discount)!
🤷

Chris Collins5 said:I read somewhere that 78,000 people were laid off this year—now the media is claiming another 50,000 are on the chopping block. If you believe the news... then those folks stop contributing to the treasury and start living off it for a while. Add wage cuts to the mix, and you've got even less money flowing back into the system. You can't fix a deficit just by slapping on crisis taxes—it's a chain reaction caused by falling consumer spending.
That drop in spending—along with plenty of other factors—eventually starves the budget all over again.
So, our options are to pile on more debt or sell everything off (at a massive discount)!
🤷

In a bubble economy fueled by massive import tariffs and sales tax, that isn't even the main issue. The priority should be slashing imports and cutting government spending. People living off the taxpayer without providing any actual value are just draining resources that should be fueling the private sector. When layoffs happen in the private sector, it's bad news because that's where the real wealth is generated. Sure, some state-run entities might turn a profit, but you can count them on one hand. Most of them—like Amtrak, major shipyards, or Exelon—are basically just bleeding money. To actually spark growth and job creation, you need to provide tax incentives, cut the bloat from government agencies, and encourage reinvestment.
We don't need more debt. We need to curb our appetites, live more modestly, and ensure the basics: food and medicine.
The unrealistic lifestyle we could never actually afford needs to be scaled back before we hit total bankruptcy. Taking on more debt isn't the answer; it's just prolonging the agony. We have to lower our standards of living. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this country is about to learn that lesson the hard way.

Dammit🙂

Robert Vaughn10 said:In a bubble economy fueled by massive import tariffs and sales tax, that isn't even the main issue. The priority should be slashing imports and cutting government spending. People living off the taxpayer without providing any actual value are just draining resources that should be fueling the private sector. When layoffs happen in the private sector, it's bad news because that's where the real wealth is generated. Sure, some state-run entities might turn a profit, but you can count them on one hand. Most of them—like Amtrak, major shipyards, or Exelon—are basically just bleeding money. To actually spark growth and job creation, you need to provide tax incentives, cut the bloat from government agencies, and encourage reinvestment.
We don't need more debt. We need to curb our appetites, live more modestly, and ensure the basics: food and medicine.
The unrealistic lifestyle we could never actually afford needs to be scaled back before we hit total bankruptcy. Taking on more debt isn't the answer; it's just prolonging the agony. We have to lower our standards of living. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this country is about to learn that lesson the hard way.

All that holds water, but how many years do you think it'll take before we actually reach a realistic standard of living at this level?

Chris Collins5 said:All that holds water, but how many years do you think it'll take before we actually reach a realistic standard of living at this level?

As long as it takes. Once you start living like that—when everyone finally pulls together—the gains multiply exponentially. Look at my grandparents. They lived in a tight-knit communal setup with their siblings. They harvested so much produce that within three years, they could afford an apartment in Washington, D.C. Yes, an apartment in D.C., earned by farmers from nothing. It wasn't just hard work; it was discipline. They saved. They bought salt and maybe a few essentials. No fancy treats, no gourmet coffee... everything was homegrown. Frugality isn't a sin; sometimes it's necessary. You save so that you can eventually spend. But then the era of excess arrived, and now we're stuck. That mindset dominates today, and it's killing us.

Chris Collins5 said:All that holds water, but how many years do you think it'll take before we actually reach a realistic standard of living at this level?

Twenty to thirty years. 😢
I am being dead serious. ☕

Sam Hughes46 said:Twenty to thirty years. 😢
I am being dead serious. ☕

I'm optimistic.

It really just boils down to whoever is running the show in the Administration and our own collective mindset.

Timothy Castillo6 said:It really just boils down to whoever is running the show in the Administration and our own collective mindset.

🙂 🙂 🙂

I don't know—is anyone actually paying attention to the sheer scale of this? It feels like we’re just watching the wheels fall off in slow motion while everyone else is arguing about the upholstery. You look at the way things are being handled lately—the bureaucracy, the endless red tape, the way decisions seem to trickle down from the top without any actual regard for the people on the ground—and you have to wonder: where did the logic go? Is it gone entirely? Or was it just misplaced somewhere between the last election cycle and now? It’s exhausting, really. You try to make sense of the policy shifts, the way the Administration seems to pivot on a dime regardless of what the data says, and you end up circling the drain. It’s like trying to build a house on quicksand—you might get a few walls up, sure, but how long before the whole thing sinks into the dirt? Does anyone actually believe this current trajectory is sustainable? I find myself skeptical. Extremely skeptical. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but then again, maybe I'm just being realistic in an era that has forgotten what reality looks like. kaže:
It all boils down to the Administration—whichever one happens to be holding the reins at the time—and... It’s just part of our national DNA—that specific way we all tend to think and act. Honestly, can you even be surprised? It's baked right into the American psyche.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

I mean, people aren't really helping us here, neither 🙂 nor the whole mess with 🙂 and 🙂. Plus, even with an extra day off through the end of the year, we're looking at 50,000 layoffs—and let's be honest, those job cuts would happen regardless of any holiday schedule. I just don't see how more time off is supposed to pull us out of this crisis, you know?

Payroll taxes have been totally inflated for ages now; they're completely disconnected from reality. The government takes way too much, then just spends it left and right without much oversight... it’s getting way too expensive for business owners, who basically have to cut worker wages just to stay competitive. For every single manufacturer, you've got three or five people just riding their coattails. I guess what we really need is to slash current taxes by at least half and cut government spending across the board by half, too—though maybe we shouldn't touch the salaries for average earners in the public sector 😵

I believe those earning $1667 in federal positions would much prefer a $3,000 raise over any other concession. If the unions decide to make things difficult, we should simply offer them pay cuts instead. Can you imagine? We could have 30,000 people out on the streets within a month.

Cutting government salaries across the board is seriously the wrong move here. If you want to fix this, layoffs are the only real way forward... we don't need endless negotiations with labor unions or anything else. They shouldn't be looking at pay cuts or sitting around bargaining about it; they should just be handing out pink slips instead.

The people who lose their jobs will have to go find work in the private sector where they can actually produce something and generate real tax revenue... and eventually, every single one of them is going to end up carrying the weight of some bureaucrat who’s been riding my back until now.

That is true, but there is another side to this. If you offer inhumane terms—specifically, salaries that aren't competitive—people will simply jump ship to the private sector. Why stay in government service if the pay makes it unprofitable?

In my view, one person living off subsidies costs the country more than a single government employee ever would.

When people have nothing to do, they find themselves with far too much idle time. That is when strange ideas start to take root, leading to protests and other nonsense. When a large group of people has excessive free time, that issue can quickly turn into a wildfire. Therefore, I don't believe forcing out every single civil servant—even the ones who are useless—is the best solution. We need to find a balance. We should phase them out gradually, starting with the youngest employees since they can find new jobs most easily. In the meantime, we ought to slash their salaries aggressively. That would force them to look for work elsewhere.

People wouldn't be living off the taxpayer's dime if their situation wasn't actually quite comfortable. To be blunt, it’s often better than working in the private sector.

Gregory Williams7 said:That is true, but there is another side to this. If you offer inhumane terms—specifically, salaries that aren't competitive—people will simply jump ship to the private sector. Why stay in government service if the pay makes it unprofitable?

In my view, one person living off subsidies costs the country more than a single government employee ever would.

When people have nothing to do, they find themselves with far too much idle time. That is when strange ideas start to take root, leading to protests and other nonsense. When a large group of people has excessive free time, that issue can quickly turn into a wildfire. Therefore, I don't believe forcing out every single civil servant—even the ones who are useless—is the best solution. We need to find a balance. We should phase them out gradually, starting with the youngest employees since they can find new jobs most easily. In the meantime, we ought to slash their salaries aggressively. That would force them to look for work elsewhere.

People wouldn't be living off the taxpayer's dime if their situation wasn't actually quite comfortable. To be blunt, it’s often better than working in the private sector.

Man, you clearly haven't heard the old saying: "They can't pay me enough to do this little work!" 😁

That’s exactly why there’s so much pressure—political favors and all that nonsense—to land those government jobs. You get the "security," a decent paycheck, and basically zero actual work to do. Now they’re talking about a 3% pay cut? Meanwhile, over at my firm, we’re dealing with forced unpaid Fridays—taking a 20% hit on our checks—plus an extra 3% just to keep the lights on. It feels like we're being shaken down. Those of us in the private sector are the ones actually carrying this entire economy on our backs. We're already working four-day weeks... honestly, the federal agencies should just implement unpaid Fridays too. That way, everyone would actually feel the weight of this crisis equally. Right now, it’s just a massive burden on the people actually doing the work.

Every single levy they pile onto the economy acts as a direct stranglehold on productivity. If you impose a 4% burden on businesses, you are effectively stifling economic activity by 4%. A 1% hike in sales tax translates directly to a 1% suppression of consumer spending.

I am certain the Federal Government cannot afford to allow this under current conditions. The issue isn't capability; it is simply a lack of awareness.