The article below is quite good. It's close enough to this thread to fit in here. You should read the whole thing including the comments, it is fairly well balanced but is based on science not just rhetoric.

Like I said, start with the truth and see where it leads you logically. Historically and by virtually every measurement the Bush economic performance is an absolute stinker. Economics is a science, people started to get it right with Clinton and then Bush got back in and rooted it up like his father did. That's not much credit to Clinton but he did have a knack of putting intelligent non delusional people in charge of hard problems. Economics is a science and he got good scientists to do science.

I am mystified why you are even defending Bush. No Libertarians seem to think his policies are anything but nonsense, yet you claim to be a Libertarian. Also you don't seem to agree with libertarians on any military aspect.

The whole notion of tax cuts is not Libertarian anyway. While they do agree tax cuts are lower they do not agree that the idea of concentrating them on the rich and tough shit for most of the rest of the people is not their policy. You might have some argument if Bush had simply cut everyone's taxes by an equal amount across the board.

The notion of cutting taxes for the rich as some kind of trickle down to the poor is an economic pariah. It doesn't work, it never did. The only reason the rich suggested it was to get MIF (money in fist) until people realised what nonsense it was. The con part is to say tax cuts instead of saying how the tax cuts are distributed and why exactly given they are limited more should go to some group than another. If tax is so evil then all should share in reducing this evil, and the facts minus the spin is that it nearly all went to the rich.

In fact it wasn't even a tax cut. State governments had to put up their taxes so few average people were better off. The only ones who really made money off it were the top 10% roughly.
And since it is adding debt with a deficit no one is trying to get rid of it is not a tax cut from that point of view either. Since all are each year getting an equal share of the deficit they have to pay interest on the ones making a profit are those whose taxes were reduced more than this share of deficit. That's the rich again.

Bush may have got some negative impacts from the dot coms and 9/11 but it is for him to prove that, not just wave his hands at it and whine. If he had changed economic policy very little then it would be arguable. The problem is he embarked on a tax cut skewed to the rich in a way that mainstream economics all said was the worst possible way to stimmulate an economy. Then the economy has done badly.

So economists say I told you so. Even now the economy is not really recovering properly, it just had a good quarter. Economies do recover though even under bad economic policy. All the textbooks will say that Bush made a mess of it.

The "Reagan Revolution" did not shrink the size of the federal government: in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ran for president federal spending (gross of offsetting receipts) was 22.7% of GDP; in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for president federal spending was 23.2% of GDP. The "Reagan Revolution" did change the shape of federal spending: one-third of domestic federal spending outside of the entitlement programs went missing between 1980 and 1992, replaced primarily by debt interest and secondarily by higher military spending. (A truly amazing fact, and testimony to the strength of the military-industrial complex: defense took a higher share of GDP in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union than it had taken in 1980). Higher debt interest came from the huge debts run up to finance Reagan's unfunded tax cuts. Debt held by the public amounted to 48% of GDP in 1992, compared to 26% of GDP in 1980. The 4.7% of GDP deficit of 1992 was a structural one: forecast--given then-current policies--to persist and grow as far out as the eye could see (my own winter of 1993 forecasts saw a then-current policy debt-to-GDP ratio of 72% of GDP by 2000).