The thing I fail to understand is this : everyone knows it is a problem, and everyone knows what the solution must be (much less expenses and moderately more ta

The thing I fail to understand is this : everyone knows it is a problem, and everyone knows what the solution must be (much less expenses and moderately more taxes). Things like the military and welfare are talked about as sacrosanct, in the way a mortgage payment or school fees would be discussed in a family heading for bankruptcy. The point is - at some time in the future the decisions are going to be forced by someone else - so you should make them now while you still have a say. The table-thumping fear about the military being downsized is completely irrational. So what if a couple of bases in Germany, Japan, England or elsewhere were either closed or downsized? Would the geopolitical stage really change? Yes, there would be layoffs and payouts, but this happens to failing companies all the time, and it's the only way to save them. Same goes for welfare - it's all very well to want to support everyone but at some point cuts are going to have to be made somewhere. And as for taxes - yes, richer people and companies are going to have to pay more. Yes, that sucks. But the problem is already here, and you can't shirk it. Yet nobody can agree to do this, while everyone bickers and fights as the raft heads for the waterfall. Without ascribing blame to any one person or political party - any balanced view will recognise most people from all parties bear some responsibility - it makes for a fascinating case study in how gridlock in a political system is a very bad thing.