Millions of people, primarily elderly retirees, have a lot of their investments in things like money funds and CDs whose rate of return are directly impacted by low rates. Low interest rates mean low returns. Try finding a CD with a good return these days. While low interest rates are very helpful for businesses and for people with debt, they most definitely do not benefit everyone as you claimed.

Drawing from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) National Economic Accounts Summary of Percent Change From Preceeding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product and Related Measures webpage (enter your own dates for beginning and ending years), you can see that the last recession ended in the first quarter of 1991. Recession is typically defined as two or more quarters of negative growth in GDP. Using 1990 as the 1st year and 1993 as the last year, the quarterly changes in GDP were as follows:

1990 Q1 5.1%
1990 Q2 0.9%
1990 Q3 -0.7% -> 1st quarter of the recession
1990 Q4 -3.2%
1991 Q1 -2.0% -> last quarter of the recession
1991 Q2 2.3%
1991 Q3 1.0%
1991 Q4 2.2%
1992 Q1 3.8%
1992 Q2 3.8%
1992 Q3 3.1%
1992 Q4 5.4%

NOTE: The country was long out of the recession by 1992 when Clinton was going around lying about the "worst economy in 50 years."

As for interest rates, here's a chart from the Federal Reserve website covering the period 1990 through today. It shows that the first of a series of interest rate cuts began on July 13, 1990 (from 8.25 to 8%). This was followed by 17 additional cuts over through September of 1992 (down to 3%). These cuts helped offset the effects of the tax increases passed by Congress in 1990 when Bush 41 broke his "read my lips" pledge. The interest rate stayed at 3% through February of 1994 when a series of 7 rate increases began.

1993 Q1 -0.1%
1993 Q2 2.5%
1993 Q3 1.8%
1993 Q4 6.2%

By 2000, there were signs that the economy was slowing. Both the DOW and NASDAQ markets peaked in early 2000 and were declining. The GDP growth rate was slowing, too.

2000 Q1 2.6%
2000 Q2 4.8%
2000 Q3 0.6%
2000 Q4 1.1%

The slowdown in the economy was due to several factors. Economists state that roughly 2/3rds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. That spending is driven by many things, but one factor contributing to the growth in the 1990s was the "wealth effect" of a rapidly rising stock market. Investors saw their net worth increasing, so they felt confident to spend more. When the markets peaked and began declining, the converse (negative wealth effect) became apparent. As a result, the economy began to head towards a recession. It didn't help that the federal reserve raised interest rates 3 times in 2000 (to 6.5%), with the last increase happening on May 16th.

2001 Q1 -0.6% -> 1st quarter of the recession
2001 Q2 -1.6%
2001 Q3 -0.3% -> last quarter of the recession
2001 Q4 2.7%

Back in 2000, then candidate Bush talked about tax cuts partly because he and his advisors could see signs of the economy slowing (and he was denounced for "talking down the economy" for saying that - funny how Clinton wasn't talking down the economy in 1992) and partly because tax cuts are a staple of Republican politics. Bush isn't as dumb as many Democrats like to believe. He's the first president with a Harvard MBA. There were a lot of people who saw signs of economic slowdown in 2000. Tax rate reductions have historically stimulated the economy, so it was fully reasonable for him to call for cuts.

Income tax rate reductions have proven themselves as stimulates to the economy in the 1960s, 1980s, and again in the Bush 43 administration. Don't forget that in the mid 1990s, Congress passed reductions in the capital gains tax that stimulated investment.

The sharp rate reductions in the 1980s encouraged people to thing of increasing earnings instead of sheltering income. This shouldn't be hard to understand. People were less willing to earn additional income when they were being taxed at such high marginal rates. After all, what's the point of trying to earn more when up to 70% of each additional dollar was taken in taxes as was the case until 1980. When the top marginal rates dropped to 38%, there was more to gain by earning additional income than by sheltering it. This led to an increase in economic activity which lead to increased revenue collections. Unfortunately, spending by the government grew even faster than revenues, hence the increase in deficits.

Conversely, tax rate increases take money out of the economy. The idea that high taxes are good for the economy has no basis in reality. Taxes are sent to government where a large percentage is squandered on overhead, only to return the remainder to the economy in the form of government spending. This is far less efficient than letting people keep more of their own money to save, spend, or invest as they see fit.

As for tax rate reductions only benefiting a small number of people, the current tax code is so skewed that the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all income taxes (Year 2000 numbers from the IRS. The top 10%, who collectively earned 46% of all income, paid over 67% of all taxes collected that year. Tell me, who should get a tax cut - the people paying the most or the least taxes?