Just because I don’t comment on an esoteric economic theory, and because you disagree with me, you say I don’t understand economics. That sounds very arrogant.
You are the one making claims which involve economic theory, yet you don’t want to defend your claims. You haven’t said anything that suggests that you understand economics. The best you can do is say: Tom said it, I believe it, that settles it.
And I have cited four concrete examples where cutting taxes resulted in higher revenue. You obviously disagree with me. But you also disagree with Thomas Sowell. Does “Tom” Sowell also not understand economics?
What you provided was a correlation, from cherry picked data. And some of the data actually shows the opposite of what you claim. For example, in 2002 and 2003 income tax receipts fell, which is the opposite of what you claim. But you admit that you cannot in any way prove that it was the income tax that caused the higher income tax revenue because inflation and population growth are also factors.
I would say that in general Tom understands economics, but in this particular instance he is being sloppy. Part of this is due to his audience, he is not publishing for professional economists, but for an audience who is likely to buy into the idea that tax cuts produce more revenue anyway, so they are going to cut him a lot of slack. Professional economists would roast him alive if he tried to pass off that claim like he did in the essay.
I agree with Thomas Sowell that they cause higher tax revenue. But I also acknowledge that other factors could also increase revenue. I think I have repeated this three times. Not sure how tax cuts could both increase and decrease overall revenue at the same time. (and you accuse me of not understanding economics).
So, did the tax cuts cause increased revenue in 2002 and 2003?
You are accusing governor Walker of not accomplishing much (which I disagree with). One would think 3rd party types would be perfectly happy with total lack of progress - when one considers that 3rd party candidates out there have failed to change anything. But of course Walker has reigned in the unions. He’s a good conservative who believes in small government - as do other GOP governors. The problem with the “true believers” is that they somehow expect everything to change overnight. And when there are victories for conservatism, they find ways to belittle them. Scott Walker faced a recall for sticking to his conservative principles. To say he is not a true conservative because he hasn’t finished what he set out to do is very unfair. Unfortunately, unfair, disingenuous tactics are common among some posters here.
In 2011, Wisconsin State Spending was $28.9 billion, while in 2012 it fell to $28.8 billion, a change of 3 tenths of one percent. To complain about big government and make a minuscule change in spending are not the marks of someone who believes in small government. I am just reporting the facts, how is reporting the facts being unfair?
Yes. Of course there are contrary views worthy of checking out. And I might even be more likely to entertain such views - after this back and forth. No one should be so rigid that they don’t entertain views other than their own. I will say this: I am more interested in what is going on now with Obamacare, size of govt, social issues, etc. than if tax cuts do or don’t raise revenue.
If you are not interesting in whether tax cuts raise or don’t raise revenue then why do you persist in claiming that they do?
The bill requires able-bodied adults without defendants work a minimum of 20 hours per week. That’s an awful lot of commuting for someone on SNAP. I get the point that you drifted into the ridiculous. 
