So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"? The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending. So if what you're saying now is that tax cuts don't increase revenues, therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them. The one thing universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses. But if you're now saying they don't do that, then what's the point of doing them at all? I mean, other than forcing budget cuts that Conservatives lack the courage or will to pass through legislation? Maybe go back through the thread and take some personal responsibility for yourself. So the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, like we were promised they would. So now you're saying deficits don't matter? Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues? What exception are you going to make now? There's education for ya. I mean, dude, this is easily discovered. You shouldn't need me to do this work for you. Stop being so lazy and take some personal responsibility. Here's an article from the Kansas City Star saying exactly that: The cost of going to college in Kansas went up again Wednesday when the state’s Board of Regents approved tuition increases at six public universities. Regents said the increases were necessary because of legislative cuts in higher education funding. And why were there cuts to education funding? Because Kansas has a BBA and tax revenues fell well short of projections.