Please define "paid for itself".
Saying the reduction of a tax must be "paid for" is ok on a bumper sticker; but let's talk business-- as in costs, benefits, and money flow.
The cost/benefit ratio (see here or here) is a standard tool in evaluating the comparative merits of competing public proposals. Meaningful comparison requires that all factors be reduced to just two-- the cost to the people, and the benefit to the people. Costs borne by and benefits accrued to the government are ignored, because the government is needed only inasmuch as it serves the needs of the people. Stated otherwise,
Please define "paid for itself".
"Paid for itself" means that the tax cut does not cause tax revenues to be lower than they would have been without the tax cut. For example, the CBO document referenced in my prior post estimated that the cost of extending the tax cuts from 2006 to 2015 would be about $1.9 trillion. That is, it falls $1.9 trillion short of paying for itself.
Since you mentioned that revenues doubled during the 80s, I assumed that you were one of those lay supply-siders who believe that the Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves. If you simply believe that the tax cuts did not cost as much as was projected, then you may have little disagreement with CBO estimates and my analysis. If you do believe that the Reagan tax cut paid for itself, however, I'd appreciate it if you could reply to the above request. I'd prefer that you critique specifics in my analysis as no supply-sider has ever done that. However, I realize that that could take some time and effort so, if you don't wish to do that, please reply to the second request and post a link to one budget document or serious economic study that purports to show any major tax cut that has ever paid for itself. Thanks.