And what exactly would you attribute the increase in tax revenues from? You then state a falsehood, when you state that no serious economist believes. You should have said no serious MARXIST economist. Mr. Sowell pre-slammed your stupid argument when he wrote, 'John Maynard Keynes said in 1933 that "given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."' Or is Keynes not a serious economist. Or Friedman, Or Sowell for that matter.
There was a time when Democrats and Republicans alike could talk sense about tax rates, in terms of what is best for the economy, without demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich."
Democratic presidents Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy spoke plainly about the fact that higher tax rates on individuals and businesses did not automatically translate into higher tax revenues for the government. Beyond some point, high tax rates on those with high incomes simply led to those incomes being invested in tax-free bonds, with the revenue from those bonds being completely lost to the government -- and the investments lost...
"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one." - Andrew Samwick, W's chief economist on his CEA 2003-2004, in 2008