While this shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone paying attention, not only are they ignoring it, but that are attempting to re-write the history and context of the infamous Bush Tax Cuts and the fact that they had a cost associated with them.
here's some relevant data if you have any questions.
The consitant and laughable shrieks of "but if somebody gave you back money, how is that a cost?" tend to show just how ill-informed these people really are.
The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
But don't assume that those that still trumpet the virtues and denefits of the Bush Tax Cuts are going to actually come away from this information with any change of heart. They have far too much invested in their own self-destruction to admit that they were wrong.
