Okay, we can throw philosophy and economic theory around until the cows come home, but when it comes down to it history tells the tale. One example is the fact that every nation that has adopted Marxism as a system has become a poverty-stricken living hell that mercilessly oppresses its citizens. Now, you can argue the theories of Marx and dialectics and all that crap all day long, but experiment counts for something. When a doctor has killed every patient he has seen, you don't need to read about his medical theories to make a decision.

Same goes for economics. You can argue theory, philosophy, or morality, but this doesn't seem to get anywhere. So let's discuss experience. Every time a major across the board tax cut has been passed, (Kennedy and Reagan being the prime national examples) net tax revenues have increased. Since in a static economic model this is theoretically impossible, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that economic growth has been responsible. And yes, I've read the reports where apologists for the Left have dissected these revenue increases, wearing the edges off of equations and statistics to somehow "prove" that revenues did not double under Reagan, but the facts stand on their own.

Now, obviously spending increased a lot faster than the revenues, but I think I showed in earlier posts about California that unless restricted, spending will ALWAYS match revenue. The appetite of government is limitless. But that's a separate argument from the basic question of tax cuts creating economic growth.

Then there is the underlying assumption behind your position that money in the public sector is more likely to create economic growth than that same money in the private sector, and whether this assumption stands up to experience. But maybe that is getting off the subject too.

I wish I had the bandwidth to dig up all the numbers on a lot of these things. I would like to know, for example, what the tax revenue history of the 1990s would have been if the capital gains jackpot from the dot.com balloon was factored out. The percentage of income taxes that was on capital gains went from 6 percent to 12 percent of revenues in that time, but I don't have the other numbers to work with. I am also handicapped in that the numbers tend to be current only up to about 2000, before the big bust.