Wow...you all sure managed to avoid the point I was making, didn't you?

A CNN writer deliberately connected unemployment and the tax cuts, using a phony number BTW, and ignoring the rest of the economic growth signs that could legitimately be considered an outcome of the tax cuts, and in response we all drift off to stimulation theory? The bastard LIED.

As for the rest of the issues:

In order to cut someone's income taxes, they have to PAY them first. Anything else is welfare. An across-the-board tax cut will naturally return more money to those who paid the most taxes, something that still seems to elude a lot of people. This kind of tax cut would be considered "fair" by some people, but I have learned that the definition of "fair" seems to alter depending on the agenda. Most liberals think that most of the taxes of the rich should be pumped to the poor instead of returned to those who earned the money. That's their idea of "fair." The fact that twenty poor people have more votes than one rich guy doesn't hurt either. The poor are the cheapest votes you can buy.

As for the odd concept that only pumping money to the lower income groups can grow an economy: you and the others seem to have this idea that middle-class and rich people never buy anything. If so, then being rich must really suck.

Do five people buying an $8,000 car have more of a positive effect on the economy and manufacturing than one person buying a $45,000 car? Why? Sheer volume of steel?