I just find it hard to believe a politician can say, "this is how we're gonna do it" without SOMEONE with a background in economics sighning off on it.

Maybe I just over estimated the competency of our leaders...

The Bush Administration has proven time and again that they regard their ideology inviolate, regardless of what the experts say.

Tax cuts for rich investors probably stimulates the economy, but not by much, especially if they balloon the deficit. There are several policies which can be used to stimulate the economy, but each have more or less "bang for the buck." Mainstream economics holds that money funneled into the hands of those in need are the best target for reviving a sluggish economy because they stimulate demand.

During a recession it makes little sense to give money to investors because plants and factories and retail stores won't increase their inventories or develop new production into the face of falling demand. Recessions are beaten by increasing demand. The way to increase demand most directly is to channel the money towards people who will spend it right away. That spending then drives hiring and ordering more inventory, etc. They would also not drive the deficit up by much, since high deficits cause interest rates to climb higher than they otherwise would.

Bush's initial tax cuts were not designed to stimulate the economy, nor was that the reason given for them by the Bushies when they were rolled out, since there was no recession at the time. At the time there were budget surpluses, and the Bushies were frantic to reduce the surpluses. Which they did quite well. After the surpluses were eliminated and the recession took hold, the tax cuts stayed but the rationale for them changed--now suddenly they were designed to stimulate the economy. Little wonder that the actual economic effect that they had was so pitiful (I'm referring to the fact that this has been one of the weakest post-recession economy we've had since WWII).

Bottom line: Bush's tax cuts were not originally designed to stimulate the economy. They were designed to reduce federal revenues and thus the budget surplus.

 Its tax avoidance for the wealthy plain and simple...It is Quid Pro Quo...It is repiglicon pay off for support from the rich constituents of the repiglicon party. Its not fair, it doesn't do as is supposed and it actually hurts the economy, 98% of the people and the country as a whole. The Wealthy's tax avoidance bill is reverse Robin Hoodism is mean spirited  greed, given the green light and official sanction by a failure of a president and a failure of a congress.  If economic stimulation were truely the goal, tax cuts should start at the very bottom and go up through the middle class. When people in a lower economic class find a few dollars more in their pay checks they spend it...HERE ...IN THE USA...NOW.

I thought tax cuts made jobs... which in turn stimulate the economy, I guess... but the primary function of tax cuts makes jobs and then you just hope for the best.

Well, that's how they make more jobs. I just didn't get all technical.

Government is most effective when they get out of the way.


Yes, the rich half including Kerry, Kennedy, etc...

  Are you trying to say that Kerry and Kennedy voted for Bush's wealthy tax avoidence bill??
  I think you are wrong there Mr new rule...again. I meant the half of congress who worship and pander to the wealthiest 2% of the nation, the repiglicon party members