Alright. I shall seriously debate the idea of the USG: United States of Godxilla. This nation would run itself on the Constitution plus the Amendments, and would add but one sentence: Congress shall make no law without first consulting the Constitution and, after debate in Congress, add a provision to each law which states why the Constitution deems it appropriate. Boom. Gone is the safety net for the poor.
So how do you address the sudden influx of seniors (around 40-ish percent) who are now in poverty because you've eliminated their sole source of income in Social Security? Or do you just let them taper off and die?

A. Armed rebellion may solve this current issue by creating an atmosphere of clean slates.
What is an "atmosphere of clean slates?" And how will that solve our complex financial crisis? Be specific.

HSBC is powerful in the USA, but to the USG, it's just another bank that probably would have helped the US government anyway. Unlike the US, with a history of catering to big banks, the USG would have fresh standards. It would solve the fiscal cliff by creating a nation that has only war debts. The USA can go fuck itself; we've got the cash.
(1) So you'd absolve all of the debt currently owed by the US? How would you address the ensuing worldwide economic chaos? If you're openly saying you refuse to pay back all of the nation's debts, that money doesn't just magically go back to those to whom it's owed.

(2) How will you "create a nation that only has war debts?" Who will those debts be owed to, and for what services?

(3) How will creating said nation "solve the fiscal cliff?"

B. My previous answer touched on it. They cannot dick around in the USG, because the fortune soldiers, farmers, hunters, and terrorists that make up our army and government have no record of tolerating shit.
(1) What do you mean by "dick around," specifically? And what will these "fortune soldiers, farmers, etc." actually DO to people who "dick around?" Do you mean to suggest that they will kill members of Congress if they don't agree with their decision?

(2) If that's the case --- if the final rule is by force and not by democratic election --- then why have Congress in the first place? Why not just let the military run the state?

C. It would prevent bullshit like this for about 200 years (if we last) by learning from our predecessors. The main cause of the Revolution was the king. 200 years later, the USA has learned and still remains kingless.
In name only. Some would argue we now have a financial heirarchy similar to the "proles-bourgeoise-nobles" structure of the old era.

On to rebellion itself. The Constitution does say that. And I agree. But these aren't normal times.
What are "normal times," exactly?

Our government is at an all-time high of screwing the people.
So are you saying there is one particular entity that is "screwing us," and that if we just remove that one element, then everything will be okay, and nobody else will try to "screw us?" Or is the idea of a powerful group of people trying to use the system to "screw us" something that is sort of intrinsic to any system with a clear set of rules?

Any banker would be horrified by $16 trillion in debt. Furthermore, Jefferson once said two things: "I like a little rebellion now and then" and "Sometimes the Tree of Liberty" must be cleansed and clipped by the blood of the citizens.
So civilians should be willing to sacrifice themselves so your ideal world can exist? Would you be willing to sacrifice yourself to make your ideal world exist?

Finally, taxes. I find it funny that liberals bitch about rich people using tax deductions, and then fight to defend tax deductions at every turn.
Why do you find that funny? Us poor people (read: people making under the national poverty standard) don't currently have a huge tax burden, in part because of deductions. A $2000 deduction is very helpful to someone who only makes $13,000 a year. Someone who makes $16 billion in one fiscal quarter, though, and already pays an effective tax rate that is less than half of the marginal tax rate, doesn't really need any more deductions; there's just no reason for it. Their business is operating very well, they're making good money off of it (and not reinvesting it into their business or expanding it), and so that money is not being reinvested into the economy. This stagnation is part of what causes economic decline; a healthy economy is indicated by activity, so stagnation is the natural opposite of that. Why let that extra tax break make an infinitesimal difference to someone whose yearly income is already thousands of times the amount of that tax break, when that money could instead be used to invigorate the economy and make a *huge* difference to someone who makes less in a year than that person makes in one day?

That's my big beef with the libertarian view of taxation; it's about principle rather than results. Libertarians promise that their "ideal world" will eventually come if we just agree to follow their principles, but it never does, and people suffer in the meantime. In that sense, it's a lot like a religion.

Mitt Romney pays 15% in taxes.
14.1 percent, actually.

Some people pay 39%
Can you name a corporation in America that paid an effective tax rate of 39% in 2011?

I understand that this is a long paper on rebellion.
Not nearly long enough. Your ideas are not fleshed out, and you have no specifics to speak of. You have a lot of ideology, but it hasn't been translated into practical direction or action. In that sense it's a very typical libertarian manifesto.