To be honest both major parties are at fault for this impending debt crisis. Government budgets work on "baseline budgeting". When they talk of "cuts" its always only cuts to a programs rate of growth and not actual real cuts to the programs themselves. If they want to be serious about dealing with the problem they need to look at REAL cuts to programs and freeze all growth.

During the bush years Republicans had complete control until 2006 and they failed to address run away spending. In 2006 democrats took control of house and senate because of that, but they along with bush did not correct the problem. Both parties were at fault for the bail outs and excessive spending during the burst of the housing bubble brought on by the low lending standards of sub prime mortgages.

The real issue is real reform is needed with real cuts in order to get to a balanced budget. The problem with raising taxes with the current fragile state of the economy may only worsen the economic problems, because more money is being taken out of the already strapped and unconfident private sector. What is needed is real economic stimulation to get businesses spending and banks lending again. We need a simplified tax system that closes loop holes and lowers rates lower corporate tax rate since it is currently highest in the world, loosen some regulations, open up more energy opportunities in the US and put confidence back in the market. If the economy is chugging along then you can have a real debate on raising certain tax brackets but I personally dont see a benefit of taking more money out of the private sector if government is eventually able to balance their budget without the need of higher taxes.

I wouldn't call Star Trek a resource based economy so much as a technology based economy.

The economy in Star Trek only works because Technology makes it so that almost nobody has to work.

Replicator technology gets rid of the first law of economics.   Scarcity.  With Scarcity gone, everything more or less loses it's value, since it's nolonger scarce... and no longer in demand, because anything can be made at any time.  (Except for a few banned substances, and oddly real booze.)

Technology, more or less handled most of the "dirty jobs" as well, so there really wasn't much need for dirty jobs.

In general the only jobs left are creative jobs, that a lot of people would do for free, and Presitge jobs... (The Federation)

These jobs would give you credits... which were used to purchase "creative" products.  Like a bowl of Benjamin Sisco's fathers special gumbo Recipe that wasn't put in the replicators.

Anyway, the main point is.  Star Trek's economy requires post scarcity... of almost everything... and post labor of any jobs people wouldn't want to do for free. 

Except when they can't do that anymore and it ends in massive capital devaulation... Though granted they don't have to worry about being voted out because their people are starving.

I wonder how bad it will be after 4 more years of Obama/Romney. I wonder if America will hit $20 trillion debt next term...or if a president will finally make a few tough cuts and slow it down to maybe "just" $16 trillion.

Ok, I figured out what to do with my time. I am going to run for congress on the platform of cutting benefits voters get and raising their taxes. Hey, VOTE FOR ME!

They meant the total national debt was over 16 trillion.

Which is why people are pissed at the Fed, since what they spent in foreign loans could of paid off the entire national debt.

So just 16 trillion would be a great reductions actualy.

Really though, using the Fed as an income source for government is a bad idea.

The Fed already gives congress money to pay down the deficit... and it instead ends up helping fuel government spending.  Whenever the fed gives them more then expected it just increases what they spend off budget.

...I'd vote for you on that platform.

Politicians have been successful with such a strategy in the past, and if they're successful they often have very high approval ratings ...

Ok, let me rephrase that in a clarifying way: My platform is that YOU personally will have your taxes raised AND you personally will get less benefits from the government.  

In a very general sense.  If it is made personal, then people usually won't vote for the candidate, PARTICULARLY individuals running for congress.  How about a candidate who runs on raising everyone's taxes and bring back less money from Washington?