This seems to be a common argument. Over the past decade, I've averaged an annual return of about 10% on my investments. Would I rather have the government take my money, that I can earn 10% on, to feed an insatiable beast or; would I rather they borrow money at 4% to meet their needs? Does anyone really doubt the answer to this?
I don't know that tax cuts can ever starve the beast enough to pay for themselves. However, the benefits of allowing American's to keep more of their money are self evident in the rapidly increasing household net worth numbers.
Here's an interesting (but older) article from Heritage that talks more about tax cuts and their many benefits. You might find chart 6, 7 and 9 interesting. I wonder if the tax cuts of the 80's would have paid for themselves if congress could have controlled their spending.
My bet is that Remember will not accept the article as proof that that we can have a tax cut. I don't believe that there is anything that will ever be acceptable. We could cut the deficit --not enough. Eliminate the deficit --the debt is still there. Pay off the debt -- oops, now we have more spending to cover.
My point is that it's the taxes that are not justified and a justification for tax-cuts is never needed. Anyone who wants my money is going to have to ask me politely and be very convincing. I don't need to explain nothin'.