It is just as true that Clinton's 1993 tax increases RAISED revenues. And that Regan's 1981 tax cuts so reduced revenues, that Congress passed a massive tax *increase* the following year (still a net cut from 1980, to be fair, but RR's initial tax cut package was set to massively increase deficits).

The big issue here is timing with respect to the business cycle. When you come out of a recession, revenues rise. Happens in all recessions, whether we have cut taxes or raised taxes or done nothing.

Did Bush's cuts raise revenue? The mere fact of an increase in revenue doesn't prove diddly -- maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Do an economic analysis that shows how tax revenue would have changed with and without the tax cuts (including the stimulative effect of the tax cuts themselves), and get back to me. Easy? No, that's why banks and investment firms will pay good money for people with PhDs in economics. But if all you want to do is say that line A points down, and line B points up, so clearly tax cuts increase revenues, don't expect to convince anyone. I might just as well argue that tax cuts cause global warming.