1. It's dependent on spending and public sentiment obviously, although it's pretty clear where the public is trending even if localities are totally missing the obvious with all their various revenue squeezing schemes (fees, license plates, proposed rate hikes - see NY pretty much). If politicians can't find a way to lower the tax rate or are stupid enough to institute something like VAT they're going to be out of the job IMO.
2. At this point in time yes. If they can no longer make payments or said payments are significantly devalued (as I mentioned in our previous discussion IIRC) then that may become a last resort regardless of what the public feels. But as I mentioned, military spending cuts could massively improve our financial situation. Even a reduction in military spending of 10%
not counting Iraq or Afghanistan would yield significant savings - $541 billion dollars going by Bureau of Labor statistics.. If you presume a 2 year withdrawal date for those conflicts, that number rises to $751 billion. Considering past polling (e.g. Pew Surveys showing 4 in 10 americans endorsing isolationism in 2008) I'm not sure more significant cuts wouldn't be popular in the near future.
As for medicare: I think we're underestimating the extent to which Gen Y will be willing to put up with the sort of increases we've seen in that program. With us already shouldering the cost of several wars, the bail outs, the stimulus, a faltering social security system, etc. I could easily see a backlash brewing there even if we've trended fairly liberal in reaction to Bush.
3. Well, yes but I'm not necessarily saying they should be lower, just that they should generally be nominal.. Mostly I'm concerned that we could see unwarranted (i.e. unprovoked) tariffs becoming popular. As for your question:
He originally proposed significant R&D tax breaks, elimination of tax breaks for off shoring/outsourcing (already us policy to an extent now), and a Economic Security Council (elaborated on below). Some other highlights taken from the National Economic Strategy he put out (obviously quite vague verging on demagoguery but still worth looking into IMO):
4. Still more worthwhile than anything else, with small businesses creating 50% of non farm GDP essentially pushing them off to the side to support a few poorly managed giants is idiotic policy. We need more protections for small business owners too so they aren't held to an arbitrarily higher standard than others (i.e. the people actually getting the bail out money).
Well, it all depends. Are we going to continue to have an >80% incumbent re-election rate, or are people actually going to reach a breaking point where not even gerry mandering and the usual 'local project' are enough to pacify them? That's really what it boils down to, political pressure. Let's not forget that the first bail out failing to pass was originally unthinkable but after an avalanche of phone calls and concerted efforts by the right it was at least delayed, an even angrier repeat of that isn't impossible.