The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy

I don't care whose philosophy creates misery and takes away money from families. That's not what we're arguing. We're arguing the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts. I don't have to support the Democrats to downplay the tax cuts. I could easily prove both sides to be wrong, and support a tax cut that only focuses on the middle class of America. That's John Edwards' plan. Give money to the heart of America. Do you not support America? Regardless of how effective Reagan or Kennedy's tax cuts were, they are different from the Bush tax cuts. Reagan and Kennedy dealt much less with free trade. America was in a completely different economic model, one that was MUCH less globalized. 1) We had much less of a trade deficit or even surplus 2) Much less of a national debt 3) We traded fewer goods with more countries than more goods with fewer countries. You dropped all of my points, what a surprise... I will, however, address the largest impact of the Bush tax cuts in relation to yourself. Your "profile" states that your salary is $75k to $100k. If you filed jointly in 2006 under that range, that would put you at less than 25% income tax rate, meaning that you are essentially in the middle class. Bush's tax cuts hardly effected you at all. He focused his tax cuts on the richest income tax bracket. My candidate, John Edwards, I assume you will attempt to bash his record as a trial lawyer of defending middle class America and the "victimization of doctors", caused not by Mr. Edwards but by insurance companies, plans to give the largest tax breaks and benefits to your income status. John Edwards is the only candidate who is truly watching out for your kind of people. But no, vote in a Republican. You don't want more money! Pay it to the government. Watch the people who "work harder" making more money get the break instead of you. That's the fair thing to do, no? Ironhead60: "Look up information on the laffer curve (and the related assumptions). When taxes go up, not all revenues go down. When taxes go down, not all revenues go up. As far as proving supply-side economics don't work, that's up to you. Good luck." That's the theory of the Laffer Curve, used as the justification by the Bush administration. However, his former chief economist, Mr. Mankiw, cites that it was ineffective in theory because of the shift of funds in the international money market and the depreciation of the dollar. This debate isn't about whose right, Dems or Reps. I said that in the first round. If you wanted to make it that, solarman, then you should've never accepted. This wasn't a direct invitation to you. To refute hoodzy's comment: Your arguments are wrong. Many economists are critical of the Bush administration's policies and argue that the economy is only benefiting the wealthy, increasing inequality between the top 1% and the rest of society. Economists Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Sherman point to recent Congressional Budget Office data showing that "the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars." According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, in 2005, the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928. [http://www.cnn.com...] [http://www.cbpp.org...] Solarman, I commend you for at least being more directive towards the topic this time around and using more analysis. However, you're not just arguing against the validity of what I say, but also the sources I use. Fun debate as always. Thanks, The Colonel