My opinion...

Tax cuts always have a beneficial effect on the economy. Put more money into the hands of consumers and it can't help but stimulate.

Here's what's wrong with the Bush stimulus plan:

-- there's a terrifying (to me) cost associated with the huge deficit caused by the cuts and the spending.

-- the cuts were skewed away from the consumers. Admittedly, everyone got some of the cuts. But if the goal was to stimulate the economy, then a much better job would have been done by moving the cuts towards the lower income taxpayers. Those who spend the most money on consumer goods.

-- the cuts were accompanied by a surge in pork and constituent-payoff spending. These also can't help but stimulate the economy. But just like the tax cuts, they are poorly targeted to stimulate. There is no spending plan - it's a random mess (giving the Republicans a huge benefit of the doubt).

If you take economic stimulus as the goal of the Bush economic plan, then it was as carefully planned as post-invasion Iraq. On the other hand if you assume the goal was to decrease taxes on the wealthy, pay off constituents, and buy future votes, then it starts to sound very well planned, indeed.

Your claim that the tax cuts caused the economy to be good (by your standards) is just an assertion. I will be happy to admit that the economy is better than it would otherwise be without the cuts. But there really is no way to quantify it.

Bear in mind that the economy booms and busts regularly, regardless of who the president is and what actions they take. You can claim credit, if you want. In fact, that's just SOP, to do so.

When do you think the economy would have come back without the cuts? Isn't 4 years about right?

By the way, I can cause the tides to come in, by standing at the beach with my arms upraised and watching the full moon pass zenith.