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.
Do you want links that show that Reagan's capital gains tax cut or the 1997 cap gain cut paid for themselves? Or that the CBO predicted the Reagan cap gain tax increase would increase revenues? Do you really want to defend the CBO and their predictions?