By the way, there's a preponderance of evidence suggesting that fiscal multipliers are well over 1 for government investing in infrastructure; furthermore, expenditure is almost always more efficient than tax relief - the reason for that was actually pioneered by your favorite conservative monetarists at the Chicago school of econ, that being temporary tax relief measures only alter the timing of purchases rather than raise aggregate demand. So when you say stuff like 'Because they have for one hundred-plus years proven utterly incapable of identifying good ways to “invest” (read: spend) our money. In a pathetic attempt to create (or save?) jobs – or for any other reason." ....
That's actually not true, at all. In fact, there have been *so many* studies affirming this and *so few* that substantially rebuke it that if you believe in the existence of tests for statistical significance (it's not liberal hogwash, I promise), whatever bias might have been introduced by individual researchers should be filtered out by now. There is definitely still plenty of room for disagreement regarding certain types of tax cuts and the multipliers associated with them - but there is no room whatsoever to argue that government expenditure could have a net multiplier of less than one (that being the effect on overall output should be greater than the government expenditure going in). That's incorrect, sorry.

Finally, the tax rate isn't 0 for half the population. Sales taxes et. al. are some of the most regressive taxes in America, as they affect the poor inordinately (who spend a far greater portion of their income on necessities) - capital gains, as you and I both know, can be taxed at a far lower rate for day-traders pretending as if they're holding long-term investments even for those who should be in a higher inocme tax bracket.

We're in an economic slump because demand is low, not because businesses can't afford more workers. Businesses are not, at heart, "job-creators". They are profit-maximizers. That is the strictest definition of a business entity that you will find in any textbook, including conservatives like Mankiw et al. They will lay off or hire in the pursuit of maximizing profit, it really doesn't matter - right now they're laying off not because they don't have the capacity to hire more (interest rates are the lowest they've ever been, corporate tax waivers let GE pay no taxes whatsoever last year, etc), but because people can't afford their stuff. Wages have been growing at a rate slower than prices, unemployment's too high - the solution has never been temporary tax cuts or cuts for businesses, it's been a solid investment in infrastructure.

Also, the idea that the 14th amendment entitles you to a flat tax is the most laughably incorrect interpretation of both the 14th amendment and income taxes that I've ever heard. You *do* realize that income taxes were set up via Constitutional amendment, right? And that income tax thus has the <same> power that the 14th amendment does, right? And that the courts - to whom much power has been given in interpreting the 14th amendment, what with how much they did to expand it over the past hundred years over dozens of cases - has *not once* interpreted the 14th amendment to apply to taxes?

Obama certainly didn't increase the federal budget from thirty percent, like you're claiming - so why would you choose the year 2007 rather than 2009, Bush's last year in office? What's with that arbitrary date?
Oh, that's right. The 2009 budget was much higher (about 400 billion, if you'd like to be a little more approximate , and that's not including hundred billion plus spent on the Iraq War every yearthat wasn't actually tallied on the federal budget until 2010) I'm not Bush-bashing at all here, by the way - everyone (except Congressional Republicans) recognizes that fiscal multipliers <do> exist and that decreasing government revenue/increasing spending is one way (though the efficacy may be debated all day) to stimulate aggregate demand.
Meanwhile, one could've simply taken a look at a chart of the national debt and pinpointed the efflorescent rise to the early 1980's - you know, ERTA.

Karl Marx didn't invent the progressive tax, kids. Adam Smith did.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
~ Your hero