Tax rates aren't everything as those affect the size of the economy. Since the end of WW2 the federal government has received ~17.5% of GDP in taxes[1] (+/- ~2.5%). You can decrease effective tax rates, end up with a larger economy, and have a higher absolute value of tax revenue than you did with higher tax rates. So it's more complicated than "lower tax rates => less tax receipts".
If we restrict our view to programs like Social Security or Medicaid we see that demographics are also straining the system. For instance I believe the number of people contributing to Social Security vs the number of people receiving benefits in the 70s was around 3.7 (payer/beneficiary), we're currently around 2.6 and in 10 years that will go down to 2.1. Put simply we're unhealthy, we're getting older, and we're not having enough kids to contribute to these programs that pay for all of these old, sick, childless people to retire and have healthcare.
From a philosophic point of view I would say the fact that about half of the electorate do not want higher taxes while the other half wants more government services should mean that these extra services are non-viable politically. What we've essentially done instead is "compromised" by not having higher taxes but still expanding government services which is contributing to our debt issues. We simply can't have it both ways, but that's exactly what the people voted for through their representatives.
> Don't worry, I gave up on this country's ability to fix any problem a long time ago.
While we are likely on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I can agree that I don't see us actually fixing this problem. I made a comment elsewhere in this thread discussing the fact that Congressional Republicans appear to be going for lower taxes and higher deficits right now while the Democrats are in disarray and not particularly focused on this problem. The unfortunate fact is that this problem is going to get worse and the solutions will get more painful over time. Congress as a whole has really dropped the ball here.
> From a philosophic point of view I would say the fact that about half of the electorate do not want higher taxes while the other half wants more government services
Are these not the same people? One half can convince themselves they don't get any payoff from their taxes; the other sees the payoff. Ultimately both expect services from their government they aren't getting, and are upset with services the government does render that seem inherently injust.
The difference is that those who most adamantly state they contribute the most while getting the least actually contribute the least while getting the most.
And what is the other side, pray tell?
Don't worry, I gave up on this country's ability to fix any problem a long time ago.