In June of 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was passed. It created a new 10 percent bracket, and was going to phase in lowered income tax rates over the next five years. More details here.

Three months later, the U.S. was attacked, and the economy plummeted. In 2003, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was passed. It accelerated what were supposed to be phased cuts through 2006 so they became active immediately.

The revenue increases began around that point.

But tax cuts don't increase revenue directly. They improve the environment for businesses and others in order to make money in the private sector, which is where economic growth really happens. The late 90s were prosperous not because of some glorious act of our kings, or because of high tax rates, but because a lot of people made a shitload of money, and paid a shitload of taxes on it.

Get rid of the idiots in Washington whose policies are all about destroying "the rich," and see what happens to the economy.

It's still the spending, Buck. Go ahead. Add that $500 billion "lost" revenue you're talking about to this year's deficit (see light blue bars on chart above)*. Or any of the others. See how that works out for us.

Remember that glorious height of revenues in the beginning of 2001 in that CBO chart?

Here's the chart:

In 2001, revenues were almost 21 percent of GDP. Note that the average outlays of 1971-2010 are STILL above that peak, and the outlays right now are far above that 21 percent point. If you had to make up that difference now solely by revenues, taxes would need to be more than 24 percent of GDP. To simplify, where does that light blue line on the graph have to rise to in order to catch up to the current level of spending?

Edit: *Actually, the chart with the blue bars is below this post now.