At what cost? I might have considered it feasible, if only barely before Bernanke decided to jump head first off the deep end.

But I will say again - there is no reliable indication that increased revenue would lead to less borrowing, less printing or less QE. Just because common sense says that is what *should* happen means little to the establishment currently in power or likely to gain power anytime soon.

Lets say for the sake of argument that our current path will have us default in 10 years. ( Just for an example)

So we tax everyone more on top of the Bernanke squeeze... and instead of defaulting in 10 years, we have 10 years of excruciating pain but dont default until year 11. Is that really worth it? Higher taxes now just deprives the common man of what little chance there is to prepare for the major corrections.

Obviously noone knows any precise timelines... if such a thing could be proven, the topic would be a lot simpler. But with our spending so astronomically high, and the ratio of useful/wasted money also extremely poor - I think at this point it falls on the govt to justify the current expenditures, not the taxpayers to offer themselves up as willing sacrifices.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)