The fact is, if you're able to separate out the issue of taxes and revenues, conservatives are correct and taxes should be decreased.
Everything you've brought up here to challenge the issue is very heavily impacted by other factors to the extent that your graphs tell us *nothing* about the impact of tax cuts or tax increases on the economy.
It's easy to lie with statistics.
It's more difficult to identify the lies in statistics, but not impossible.
That said, Bush is a fink for refusing to cut spending, and I'm extremely unhappy with his peformance in domestic economics. If he was attempting to achieve a "new tone" by given Democrats what they wanted economically here at home, hopefully, by now, he's understood that they are going to hate him no matter what he does because of those 3 characters after his name and title (R).
The issue addressed by the lead article in this thread is the impact of tax cuts on revenues. And, according to the administration's own budget documents, the tax cuts have led to LOWER revenues. For example Table 7 in the 2005 Mid-Session Review breaks down the increase of over $2 trillion in the deficit since the 2002 Budget. It states that 49 percent of this swing was due to reestimates, 29 percent was due to tax relief, and the remaining 22 percent was due to the war, homeland, and other spending.
Then, in Table S-7 of the just-released 2006 Mid-Session Review, the administration projects that extending the marginal individual income tax rate reductions from 2011 to 2015 will cost about half a trillion dollars and repeal of the estate tax for those years will cost about a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Every budget document and credible economic study that I have ever seen states that tax cuts of any significance lead to lower revenues, at least in the short and medium term (the very long term is difficult, if not impossible, to measure). If you have ever seen a budget document or credible economic study that says otherwise, please post it.