It's as easy to ignore the evidence against Bush's economic plans as it is to ignore the evidence for his Iraq policy. Each party sees what it wants to.

Sure outsourcing predates bush's tax cuts. A wise economic steward would ask what impact his policies will have on negative trends before he changes policy. I would have asked myself where the tax cuts were most likely to improve the economy. Small business lead recovery, not big business. Small businesses are responsible for most job creation. Big business can take profits and build new plants overseas. Small businesses are less likely to do so. Small business and individuals should have been the focus of a recovery boosting policy with the added ingredient of rapid impact (ie the opposite of dividend cuts).

You see no evidence of fault in Bush's economic policy because you blithely ignore the slow pace of jobs recovery. My hypothesis is just that, but most economic explanations I've had have no more meat than mine. It's not a hard science.

I sure don't buy the outsourcing is good for America line even if I still have trouble letting go of my support for free trade. I view free trade as a good thing for the world, but not necessarily for the US. I think it reduces the average costs of goods which is good, but may reduce average American wages. Outsourcing in and of itself is clearly bad for Americans loosing their jobs. It would be a temporary negative if lost jobs were replaced by equal or better paying ones, but the evidence I recall seems to point the other way.

As for your "targeted" tax cuts comments, Bush's were targeted. They were targeted towards the groups that were most supportive of his candidacy, the wealthy and business.

Regards,
Mark