You're making an ideological argument about taxes that makes no sense in modern economic theory. The end result of course is that the economy suffers. Firstly you either believe that taxes are a valid thing or not, and whether they should be levied and coercively collected. If you don't then you either have an infrastructure like Somalia or an unproven alternative like libertarianism which no one has ever been able to successfully work in the real world.
Once you accept taxes should be levied then the next step is how much on who and what for. Few people would argue about defense and police, so the usual argument is welfare and subsidies. Since Republicans love to get government contracts and subsidies the real question they are asking is who should be subsidised, them or the poor. In other words who should get the money from taxation given to them, the rich or the poor? That's government in a nutshell, taking from one interest group to give to another. Some of these are for bad reasons and some are good for more people, we call this a multiplier effect in that case. The idea of economics in this case is to tax and use that money to create effects that overall benefit more people than if the tax hadn't been levied.
The problem with a money supply is it's like a poker game, in that a few people tend to win all the money and then the game ends. The problem is that no one can afford to let an economy end because a few smart people got all the money. For practical reasons the rich must give some of it back to keep the economy rolling, that's called progressive taxation.
There is only so much money in a country and if the rich have too much the rest of the people have too little. They can't ever have more because in these cases the percentage of the country's assets in the hands of the top 1 and 10% never drops back by itself. Therefore the rest of the people never get richer unless something is done. By progressive taxation this money goes back to the lower classes who can then buy things so the richer people work harder to get the money back again. This keeps them working which is good for everyone. In countries like Brazil the money ends up in the richest people's hands and stays there, consequently the poor remain poor forever.
So Bush's tax cuts simply concentrated more money in the hands of the richest people and paradoxically just made the rest of the people poorer now and in the future with debt. Since they have no more money in their pockets they can't buy anything and so the factories cannot increase output and hire more people. Economic policy has to be based on what works and the real world. These guys are just advocating tax cuts for the rich because they get more money not because in any way it will help poorer people.